8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Use of pedometers as a tool to promote daily physical activity levels in patients with COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The aim of this study was to examine the use of pedometers as a tool to promote daily physical activity levels in patients with COPD.

          A systematic review meta-analysis of pedometer physical activity promotion in patients with COPD was conducted. Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and CINAHL were searched from inception to January 2019. The search strategy included the following keywords: physical activity promotion, pulmonary rehabilitation and daily physical activity. The eligibility criteria for selecting studies were randomised controlled trials reporting pedometer physical activity promotion in patients with COPD.

          Improvements in steps per day were found with pedometer physical activity promotion either standalone (n=12, mean 0.53 (95% CI 0.29–0.77); p=0.00001) or alongside pulmonary rehabilitation (n=7, 0.51 (0.13–0.88); p=0.006). A subgroup analysis reported significant differences in the promotion of physical activity based on baseline physical activity levels and the type of instrument used to assess levels of physical activity.

          Future trials should consider the way in which pedometers are used to promote physical activity to inform clinical practice in the setting of pulmonary rehabilitation.

          Abstract

          Pedometer based physical activity promotion as a standalone intervention or alongside pulmonary rehabilitation induces meaningful improvements in daily physical activity levels (steps per day) in patients with COPD. http://bit.ly/2LnxM2o

          Related collections

          Most cited references45

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials.

            Assessment of the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is common practice in systematic reviews. However, the reliability of data obtained with most quality assessment scales has not been established. This report describes 2 studies designed to investigate the reliability of data obtained with the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale developed to rate the quality of RCTs evaluating physical therapist interventions. In the first study, 11 raters independently rated 25 RCTs randomly selected from the PEDro database. In the second study, 2 raters rated 120 RCTs randomly selected from the PEDro database, and disagreements were resolved by a third rater; this generated a set of individual rater and consensus ratings. The process was repeated by independent raters to create a second set of individual and consensus ratings. Reliability of ratings of PEDro scale items was calculated using multirater kappas, and reliability of the total (summed) score was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC [1,1]). The kappa value for each of the 11 items ranged from.36 to.80 for individual assessors and from.50 to.79 for consensus ratings generated by groups of 2 or 3 raters. The ICC for the total score was.56 (95% confidence interval=.47-.65) for ratings by individuals, and the ICC for consensus ratings was.68 (95% confidence interval=.57-.76). The reliability of ratings of PEDro scale items varied from "fair" to "substantial," and the reliability of the total PEDro score was "fair" to "good."
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              An official American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society statement: key concepts and advances in pulmonary rehabilitation.

              Pulmonary rehabilitation is recognized as a core component of the management of individuals with chronic respiratory disease. Since the 2006 American Thoracic Society (ATS)/European Respiratory Society (ERS) Statement on Pulmonary Rehabilitation, there has been considerable growth in our knowledge of its efficacy and scope. The purpose of this Statement is to update the 2006 document, including a new definition of pulmonary rehabilitation and highlighting key concepts and major advances in the field. A multidisciplinary committee of experts representing the ATS Pulmonary Rehabilitation Assembly and the ERS Scientific Group 01.02, "Rehabilitation and Chronic Care," determined the overall scope of this update through group consensus. Focused literature reviews in key topic areas were conducted by committee members with relevant clinical and scientific expertise. The final content of this Statement was agreed on by all members. An updated definition of pulmonary rehabilitation is proposed. New data are presented on the science and application of pulmonary rehabilitation, including its effectiveness in acutely ill individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and in individuals with other chronic respiratory diseases. The important role of pulmonary rehabilitation in chronic disease management is highlighted. In addition, the role of health behavior change in optimizing and maintaining benefits is discussed. The considerable growth in the science and application of pulmonary rehabilitation since 2006 adds further support for its efficacy in a wide range of individuals with chronic respiratory disease.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Eur Respir Rev
                Eur Respir Rev
                ERR
                errev
                European Respiratory Review
                European Respiratory Society
                0905-9180
                1600-0617
                31 December 2019
                13 November 2019
                : 28
                : 154
                : 190039
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Dept of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation, School of Health & Life Sciences, Northumbria University Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
                [2 ]REVAL Rehabilitation Research Centre, BIOMED Biomedical Research Institute, Faculty of Rehabilitation sciences, Hasselt University, Diepenbeek, Belgium
                Author notes
                Matthew Armstrong Northumbria University, School of Health & Life Sciences, Ellison Place, NE1 8ST, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. E-mail: matthew.armstrong@ 123456northumbria.ac.uk
                Article
                ERR-0039-2019
                10.1183/16000617.0039-2019
                9488624
                31722891
                3213ec86-0dcd-45d9-a3a1-306b1114476a
                Copyright ©ERS 2019.

                This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0.

                History
                : 04 April 2019
                : 11 July 2019
                Categories
                Reviews
                1

                Comments

                Comment on this article