Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10773/33033
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSouto-Miranda, Sarapt_PT
dc.contributor.authorMendes, Maria A.pt_PT
dc.contributor.authorCravo, Joãopt_PT
dc.contributor.authorAndrade, Líliapt_PT
dc.contributor.authorSpruit, Martijn A.pt_PT
dc.contributor.authorMarques, Aldapt_PT
dc.date.accessioned2022-01-26T17:07:24Z-
dc.date.available2022-01-26T17:07:24Z-
dc.date.issued2022-02-01-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10773/33033-
dc.description.abstractThe 6 min walking test (6MWT) has been largely studied. Less is, however, known about responders and non-responders to pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in other meaningful activities. We explored responders and non-responders and the predictors of response to PR in the 1 min sit-to-stand test (1 min STS) and the 6MWT and compared both measures in classifying responders. An observational study was conducted with 121 people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The functional status was assessed before and after PR. Baseline differences between responders and non-responders were tested with Mann–Whitney U, chi-square, or Fisher exact tests. Predictors were explored with binary logistic regressions. Agreement between both measures was assessed with chi-square, Cohen’s kappa, and McNemar tests. There were 54.5% and 57.0% of responders in the 1 min STS and the 6MWT, respectively. The proportion of responders was significantly different (p = 0.048), with a small agreement between the measures (kappa = 0.180; p = 0.048). The baseline 6MWT was the only significant predictor of response in the 6MWT (OR = 0.995; pseudo-r2 = 0.117; p < 0.001). No significant predictors were found for the 1 min STS. A large number of non-responders in terms of functional status exist. The 1 min STS and the 6MWT should not be used interchangeably. Future studies should explore the added benefit of personalizing PR to this outcome and investigate other potential predictors.pt_PT
dc.language.isoengpt_PT
dc.publisherMDPIpt_PT
dc.relationSFRH/BD/146134/2019pt_PT
dc.relationPOCI-01-0145-FEDER-028806pt_PT
dc.relationPTDC/SAU-SER/28806/2017pt_PT
dc.relationUIDB/04501/2020pt_PT
dc.rightsopenAccesspt_PT
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/pt_PT
dc.subjectFunctional statuspt_PT
dc.subjectCOPDpt_PT
dc.subjectPulmonary rehabilitationpt_PT
dc.subjectResponder analysispt_PT
dc.titleFunctional status following pulmonary rehabilitation: responders and non-responderspt_PT
dc.typearticlept_PT
dc.description.versionpublishedpt_PT
dc.peerreviewedyespt_PT
degois.publication.issue3pt_PT
degois.publication.titleJournal of Clinical Medicinept_PT
degois.publication.volume11pt_PT
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/jcm11030518pt_PT
dc.identifier.essn2077-0383pt_PT
dc.identifier.articlenumber518pt_PT
Appears in Collections:IBIMED - Artigos
ESSUA - Artigos
DCM - Artigos
Lab3R - Artigos

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Published_paper.pdf515.17 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


FacebookTwitterLinkedIn
Formato BibTex MendeleyEndnote Degois 

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.