Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Journal club
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Journal club
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

The impact of the meta-analysis of pulmonary rehabilitation by Lacasse and colleagues: transforming pulmonary rehabilitation from “art to science”

Sarah Gephine, Carla Simonelli, Guido Vagheggini, Rachael Evans, Thomas J.C. Ward
Breathe 2022 18: 220021; DOI: 10.1183/20734735.0021-2022
Sarah Gephine
1Univ. Lille, Univ. Artois, Univ. Littoral Côte D'opale, ULR 7369-Urepsss, Lille, France
6These authors contributed equally and share first authorship
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Carla Simonelli
2Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri IRCCS, Respiratory Rehabilitation Division of the Institute of Lumezzane, Lumezzane, Italy
6These authors contributed equally and share first authorship
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Guido Vagheggini
3Azienda USL Toscana Nordovest, Dept of Medical Specialties, Chronic Respiratory Failure Care Pathway, Pisa, Italy
4Fondazione Volterra Ricerche ONLUS, Volterra, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Guido Vagheggini
Rachael Evans
5Leicester NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Rachael Evans
Thomas J.C. Ward
5Leicester NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Thomas J.C. Ward
  • For correspondence: tom.ward@leicester.ac.uk
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

#Pulmonaryrehab was transformed in the 1990s into the standard of care for COPD: this article focuses on the impact of the 1996 meta-analysis by Lacasse and colleagues which provided the evidence to silence the sceptics https://bit.ly/3MIntBC

Introduction

The modern definition of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) [1, 2] and its effectiveness for improving dyspnoea, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and exercise tolerance in people with chronic respiratory diseases is now well recognised [3–7]. However, this has not always been the case, and the widespread acceptance of PR as a treatment for COPD required robust evidence of its benefits to silence sceptics who saw PR as an “art” rather than science. The meta-analysis of PR for people with COPD by Lacasse et al. [3], in 1996, had a major part to play in this transformation (figure 1). This article provides an overview of this landmark study and discusses the impact it had on the respiratory community.

FIGURE 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1

Timeline of the history of PR.

The early years of PR

Although the concepts behind PR can be traced back several centuries, Alvan L. Barach is often regarded as a pioneering physician, who in the 1950s first reported the concept of physiological training and denounced the damaging effects of a sedentary lifestyle in people with pulmonary emphysema [8]. In the 1960s, Thomas Petty and his team, developed a “standardized outpatient program of pulmonary rehabilitation”, including what are the essential components of today's PR, such as individualised exercise training and education [9].

After developing the concept, the challenge was to demonstrate evidence of effectiveness. After almost a decade of experience, in 1969 Petty et al. [9] published a landmark paper entitled “A comprehensive care program for chronic airway obstruction”, which provided some of the first evidence of benefits of PR, improving exercise tolerance and reducing rate of hospitalisation in 124 people with COPD. In 1974, the first definition of PR was published by the American College of Chest Physicians, in which PR was considered “an art of medical practice” and included “an individualized multi-disciplinary program”. The definition was then updated in 1981 in an official statement of the American Thoracic Society, in which exercise training was defined as an essential component of PR [10].

Despite the positive effects described by Petty, the 1980s have been described as the “dark ages” of PR [11], with some physicians doubting the benefits of exercise training for people with COPD; PR was still seen as an “art” and more evidence was needed to demonstrate its scientific basis. Doubts were based on a poor understanding of exercise physiology and focused on the lack of improvement in lung function. A paper published by Belman and Kendregan [12], in 1981, strongly influenced scepticism in PR as it failed to show improvements in heart rate and skeletal muscle enzymes following exercise training in people with COPD. However, the study design, specifically the low-intensity training, was challenged later the same year as the reason for a lack of improvement [13].

Understanding began to shift in the early 1990s with landmark studies providing increasing evidence of the benefits of PR. First, Ries [14] provided a review of the scientific basis of the effectiveness of PR on exercise tolerance, dyspnoea and HRQoL. Then strong physiological rationales were developed by Casaburi et al. [15, 16] and later by Maltais et al. [17] proving that effective exercise training could improve skeletal muscle function in COPD regardless of disease severity. In 1994, Goldstein et al. [18] published a landmark trial of PR in the Lancet demonstrating improvements in exercise capacity and quality of life. With the publication of an increasing number of controlled trials of PR, it was time for a robust synthesis of the evidence.

The meta-analysis by Lacasse and colleagues: effectiveness of PR on exercise capacity and quality of life

In 1996, the first meta-analysis by Lacasse et al. [3] published in the Lancet synthesised the evidence investigating the effect of PR on measures of maximal and functional exercise capacity, and HRQoL in people with COPD. It involved a meta-analysis of 14 randomised controlled trials (RCT), comparing at least 4 weeks of PR for people with COPD to usual care.

The 14 RCTs were of moderate methodological quality, with two potential sources of bias: unconcealed randomisation and unblinded study personnel. The PR programmes included were inpatient, outpatient or home-based, lasting between 6 and 18 weeks. Lower-limb exercise was always administered, and other components included breathing exercises, upper-limb training, education, psychological support, postural drainage and inspiratory muscle training. Study sample size varied from 14 to 78, with mean age ranging from 57 to 73 years and heterogeneous disease severity.

Lacasse et al. [3] found a significant pooled positive effect of PR on maximal exercise capacity (effect size 0.3, 95% CI 0.1–0.6) in 11 trials (309 patients), equating to 8.3 Watts (95% CI 2.8–16.5 Watts) for studies that used incremental cycling exercise testing. Functional capacity improved with PR with an effect size of 0.6 (95% CI 0.3–1.0) in 11 trials (413 patients), corresponding to an improvement in the 6-min walk test (6MWT) of 55.7 m (95% CI 27.8–92.8 m). The lower limit of the confidence interval fell below the authors estimate for the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for the 6 MWT of 50 m based on recently published data [19]. The authors found high heterogeneity in the results for functional exercise capacity, with the longest PR programme (6 months) more effective than the shortest one (93.8 m versus 39.2 m, p=0.0004).

HRQoL was measured in 12 studies using 10 different methods. Meta-analysis was performed on two of these scales that had been validated at the time: the Transitional Dyspnea Index (TDI) and the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ). These scales were assessed in six studies (126 and 111 patients for TDI and CRQ, respectively) demonstrating a significant improvement in HRQoL following PR compared with usual care. The CRQ revealed an overall effect size higher than the MCID of 0.5 [20] in all the domains investigated (dyspnoea, fatigue, emotion and mastery).

A comprehensive review, but what was missing?

This meta-analysis demonstrated the effectiveness of PR over usual care in improving exercise capacity and HRQoL in people with COPD. Lacasse and colleagues concluded that, given the homogeneity among study results for improvements in maximal exercise capacity and HRQoL, there was no doubt that even PR programmes of short duration were effective.

However, some limitations of the analysis were highlighted. First, the paper demonstrated only the short-term effect of PR at programme completion and suggested further studies were needed to investigate long-term effects and maintenance strategies. Furthermore, despite the homogeneity of the results, the programmes proposed were different in terms of setting, duration and composition, and the contribution given by each single component of the programmes was not investigated. Additional studies were also needed to identify the response to PR in subgroups of COPD with different disease severity or phenotypes, to identify non-responders, as well as improving the tailoring of the programme to the individual. Finally, other methods of evaluation were required to assess the benefits of PR on outcomes other than exercise capacity and HRQoL, such as muscle strength, dyspnoea perception, daily physical activity, healthcare utilisation, hospitalisation rate or mortality, and to investigate the effects for people with chronic respiratory diseases other than COPD.

From research to practice: PR becomes the standard of care for COPD

Publication of the meta-analysis by Lacasse et al. [3] was followed by statements from the European Respiratory Society (ERS) [21] and American Thoracic Society (ATS) [22] setting out the clinical benefits of PR and championing further development of PR programmes. In the decade that followed, there was a rapid expansion of PR programmes globally representing a step change in the clinical care of COPD. PR became the standard of care, and in 2001 was included in recommendations for the management of stable COPD [23], and became an integral part of the treatment for a range of chronic respiratory conditions [5–7] although the assumption of the benefits of PR for people with other chronic respiratory diseases was at this stage extrapolated from the data from individuals with COPD.

The Cochrane collaboration published further systematic reviews of PR in 2001 [24], 2006 [25] and 2015 [4], cementing the evidence for improved exercise capacity and quality of life for people with COPD. Indeed, the evidence was so compelling that the 2015 Cochrane review of PR concluded that “additional RCTs comparing pulmonary rehabilitation and conventional care in COPD are not warranted”, thereby firmly closing a chapter in the history of PR development; PR had convincingly transitioned from “art” to scientifically proven treatment.

Where next for PR research?

Although the closing of the Cochrane review was a major moment in PR research, it was not the end of the story. Despite compelling evidence for the effectiveness of PR there remained many unanswered questions regarding the optimal design and delivery of PR programmes across a variety of settings globally [26]. Access, uptake, and completion continue to be major challenges; rate of referrals in some settings are low [27] and once referred many patients do not attend or complete a programme [28], often citing difficulties with transport and competing commitments (including work and caring responsibilities) [29] as reasons for not attending. Alternative models of PR have therefore been developed to address these issues, largely focusing on home-based rehabilitation with varying levels of direct or indirect support. These may provide a useful tool in the PR toolkit, particularly for individuals for whom centre-based PR is unfeasible or undesirable. However, whilst supervised home-based rehabilitation has been shown to be effective [30], the effectiveness of remotely supervised PR remains uncertain [31].

Whilst the work of Lacasse and others has demonstrated the effectiveness of PR in an unselected COPD cohort, it may be possible to further enhance the benefits of PR through an individualised approach to treatment focused on “treatable traits”. A comprehensive PR programme is designed to address multiple physical and psychological aspects of a patient's condition [32], and whilst the effect of PR on maximal exercise capacity is likely to be primarily mediated through the effect of aerobic exercise training on skeletal muscle dysfunction, other targeted outcomes, such as increased physical activity or reduced healthcare utilisation [33] may not respond to aerobic exercise training in isolation and may require improvements in self-management or knowledge as result of a structured education programme [34]. Therefore, we need a better understanding of how to individualise PR programmes for our diverse group of patients with a range of chronic respiratory diseases, either by stratifying the exercise and education components through targeting of “treatable traits” [35], or providing holistic care through an integrated multidisciplinary approach, before the tale of PR research is truly complete.

Conclusion

Although the concept of multidisciplinary PR was developed in the 1960s, the meta-analysis of Lacasse et al. [3] published in 1996 was a major milestone in PR research and facilitated the widespread acceptance of PR as an integral part of the treatment for COPD. The review provided convincing evidence of the effectiveness of PR for improving exercise capacity and quality of life, resulting in the inclusion of PR in international guidelines translating to everyday clinical care for people with chronic respiratory diseases worldwide.

Footnotes

  • Conflict of interest: C. Simonelli is an unpaid member of the Board of Directors of ARIR Associazione Riabilitatori dell'Insufficienza Respiratoria, Italy, outside the submitted work. G. Vagheggini reports receiving personal fees for a CME course lecture - Provider: Regia Congressi (funded by an unrestricted educational grant from CHIESI Farmaceutici S.p.A) and CME webinar lecture - Summeet Sri (funded by an unrestricted educational grant from A. Menarini Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite srl). He is president of Fondazione Volterra Ricerche ONLUS (unpaid). All disclosures made outside the submitted work. R. Evans reports receiving grants or contracts from NIHR, UKRI. Payment received from Boehringer June 2021 for speaker bureaus. Support for attending meetings and/or travel received from Chiesi. Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group for European Respiratory Society as Assembly 01.02 Pulmonary Rehabilitation secretary (unpaid). All disclosures made outside the submitted work. T.J.C. Ward is funded by the NIHR (NIHR Clinical Lectureship (CL-2020-11-004)). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those ofthe NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The remaining authors have nothing to disclose.

  • Received February 16, 2022.
  • Accepted April 28, 2022.
  • Copyright ©ERS 2022
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Breathe articles are open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Spruit MA,
    2. Singh SJ,
    3. Garvey C, et al.
    An official American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society statement: key concepts and advances in pulmonary rehabilitation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013; 188: e13–e64. doi:10.1164/rccm.201309-1634ST
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Holland AE,
    2. Singh SJ,
    3. Casaburi R, et al.
    Defining modern pulmonary rehabilitation. An official American Thoracic society workshop report. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2021; 18: E12–E29. doi:10.1513/AnnalsATS.202102-146ST
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Lacasse Y,
    2. Wong E,
    3. Guyatt GH, et al.
    Meta-analysis of respiratory rehabilitation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Lancet 1996; 348: 1115–1119. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(96)04201-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. McCarthy B,
    2. Casey D,
    3. Devane D, et al.
    Pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 2: CD003793. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003793.pub3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Dowman L,
    2. Hill CJ,
    3. May A, et al.
    Pulmonary rehabilitation for interstitial lung disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 2: CD006322. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006322.pub4
    OpenUrl
    1. Lee AL,
    2. Hill CJ,
    3. McDonald CF, et al.
    Pulmonary rehabilitation in individuals with non–cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis: a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2017; 98: 774–782.e1. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2016.05.017
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Morris NR,
    2. Kermeen FD,
    3. Holland AE
    . Exercise-based rehabilitation programmes for pulmonary hypertension. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 1: CD011285. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD011285.pub2
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Barach AL,
    2. Bickerman HA,
    3. Beck G
    . Advances in the treatment of non-tuberculous pulmonary disease. Bull N Y Acad Med 1952; 28: 353–384.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Petty TL,
    2. Nett LM,
    3. Finigan MM, et al.
    A comprehensive care program for chronic airway obstruction. Methods and preliminary evaluation of symptomatic and functional improvement. Ann Intern Med 1969; 70: 1109–1120. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-70-6-1109
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Hodgkin JE,
    2. Farrell MJ,
    3. Gibson SR, et al.
    American Thoracic Society. Medical Section of the American Lung Association. Pulmonary rehabilitation. Am Rev Respir Dis 1981; 124: 663–666.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Casaburi R
    . A brief history of pulmonary rehabilitation. Respir Care 2008; 53: 1185–1189.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Belman MJ,
    2. Kendregan BA
    . Exercise training fails to increase skeletal muscle enzymes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am Rev Respir Dis 1981; 123: 256–261. doi:10.1164/arrd.1981.123.3.256
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Haber P
    . Exercise training fails to increase skeletal muscle enzymes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am Rev Respir Dis 1981; 124: 347.
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Ries AL
    . Position paper of the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation. Scientific basis of pulmonary rehabilitation. J Cardiopulm Rehabil 1990; 10: 418–441. doi:10.1097/00008483-199011000-00004
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. ↵
    1. Casaburi R,
    2. Patessio A,
    3. Ioli F, et al.
    Reductions in exercise lactic acidosis and ventilation as a result of exercise training in patients with obstructive lung disease. Am Rev Respir Dis 1991; 143: 9–18. doi:10.1164/ajrccm/143.1.9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Casaburi R,
    2. Porszasz J,
    3. Burns MR, et al.
    Physiologic benefits of exercise training in rehabilitation of patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997; 155: 1541–1551. doi:10.1164/ajrccm.155.5.9154855
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Maltais F,
    2. LeBlanc P,
    3. Simard C, et al.
    Skeletal muscle adaptation to endurance training in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1996; 154: 442–447. doi:10.1164/ajrccm.154.2.8756820
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Goldstein RS,
    2. Gort EH,
    3. Stubbing D, et al.
    Randomised controlled trial of respiratory rehabilitation. Lancet 1994; 344: 1394–1397. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(94)90568-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Goldstein R,
    2. Redelmeier D,
    3. Baksh L, et al.
    Subjective comparison ratings of walking ability in patients with COPD. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference Pulmonary ventilation and Home Ventilation, Denver, Colorado, 1995, Vol. 99.
  19. ↵
    1. Guyatt GH,
    2. Townsend M,
    3. Berman LB, et al.
    Quality of life in patients with chronic airflow limitation. Br J Dis Chest 1987; 81: 45–54. doi:10.1016/0007-0971(87)90107-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Donner CF,
    2. Muir JF
    . Selection criteria and programmes for pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD patients. Eur Respir J 1997; 10: 744–757. doi:10.1183/09031936.97.10030744
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Lareau SC,
    2. ZuWallack R,
    3. Carlin B, et al.
    Pulmonary rehabilitation – 1999. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999; 159: 1666–1682. doi:10.1164/ajrccm.159.5.ats2-99
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Pauwels RA,
    2. Buist AS,
    3. Calverley PMA, et al.
    Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. NHLBI/WHO Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Workshop summary. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001; 163: 1256–1276. doi:10.1164/ajrccm.163.5.2101039
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Lacasse Y,
    2. Brosseau L,
    3. Milne S, et al.
    Pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002; 3: CD003793. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003793
    OpenUrlPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Lacasse Y,
    2. Goldstein R,
    3. Lasserson TJ, et al.
    Pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; 4: CD003793. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003793.pub2
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Rochester CL,
    2. Vogiatzis I,
    3. Holland AE, et al.
    An official American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society policy statement: enhancing implementation, use, and delivery of pulmonary rehabilitation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2015; 192: 1373–1386. doi:10.1164/rccm.201510-1966ST
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Nishi SPE,
    2. Zhang W,
    3. Kuo YF, et al.
    Pulmonary rehabilitation use in older adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 2003–2012. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev 2016; 36: 375. doi:10.1097/HCR.0000000000000194
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Steiner M,
    2. Holzhauer-Barrie J,
    3. Lowe D, et al.
    Pulmonary Rehabilitation: Time to Breathe Better. National Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Audit Programme: Resources and organisation of Pulmonary Rehabilitation services in England and Wales 2015. London, RCP, 2015. https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/outputs/pulmonary-rehabilitation-time-breathe-better
  28. ↵
    1. Guo S-E,
    2. Bruce A
    . Improving understanding of and adherence to pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with COPD: a qualitative inquiry of patient and health professional perspectives. PLoS One 2014; 9: e110835 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0110835
    OpenUrl
  29. ↵
    1. Wuytack F,
    2. Devane D,
    3. Stovold E, et al.
    Comparison of outpatient and home-based exercise training programmes for COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Respirology 2018; 23: 272–283. doi:10.1111/resp.13224
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Cox NS,
    2. Dal Corso S,
    3. Hansen H, et al.
    Telerehabilitation for chronic respiratory disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 1: CD013040. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD013040.pub2
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Gordon CS,
    2. Waller JW,
    3. Cook RM, et al.
    Effect of pulmonary rehabilitation on symptoms of anxiety and depression in COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Chest 2019; 156: 80–91. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2019.04.009
    OpenUrl
  32. ↵
    1. Griffiths TL,
    2. Burr ML,
    3. Campbell IA, et al.
    Results at 1 year of outpatient multidisciplinary pulmonary rehabilitation: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2000; 355: 362–368. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(99)07042-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Moore E,
    2. Palmer T,
    3. Newson R, et al.
    Pulmonary rehabilitation as a mechanism to reduce hospitalizations for acute exacerbations of COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Chest 2016; 150: 837–859. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2016.05.038
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Wouters EFM,
    2. Wouters BREF,
    3. Augustin IML, et al.
    Personalised pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD. Eur Respir Rev 2018; 27: 170125. doi:10.1183/16000617.0125-2017
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 18 Issue 2 Table of Contents
Breathe: 18 (2)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The impact of the meta-analysis of pulmonary rehabilitation by Lacasse and colleagues: transforming pulmonary rehabilitation from “art to science”
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
The impact of the meta-analysis of pulmonary rehabilitation by Lacasse and colleagues: transforming pulmonary rehabilitation from “art to science”
Sarah Gephine, Carla Simonelli, Guido Vagheggini, Rachael Evans, Thomas J.C. Ward
Breathe Jun 2022, 18 (2) 220021; DOI: 10.1183/20734735.0021-2022

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
The impact of the meta-analysis of pulmonary rehabilitation by Lacasse and colleagues: transforming pulmonary rehabilitation from “art to science”
Sarah Gephine, Carla Simonelli, Guido Vagheggini, Rachael Evans, Thomas J.C. Ward
Breathe Jun 2022, 18 (2) 220021; DOI: 10.1183/20734735.0021-2022
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • The early years of PR
    • The meta-analysis by Lacasse and colleagues: effectiveness of PR on exercise capacity and quality of life
    • A comprehensive review, but what was missing?
    • From research to practice: PR becomes the standard of care for COPD
    • Where next for PR research?
    • Conclusion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • Respiratory clinical practice
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • Balloon pulmonary angioplasty: lessons learned and unanswered questions
  • A look back at the PANTHER-IPF trial
Show more Landmark papers in respiratory medicine

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About Breathe

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Intructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN: 1810-6838
Online ISSN: 2073-4735

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society