↓ Skip to main content

COPD online-rehabilitation versus conventional COPD rehabilitation – rationale and design for a multicenter randomized controlled trial study protocol (CORe trial)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pulmonary Medicine, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
413 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
COPD online-rehabilitation versus conventional COPD rehabilitation – rationale and design for a multicenter randomized controlled trial study protocol (CORe trial)
Published in
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12890-017-0488-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Henrik Hansen, Theresa Bieler, Nina Beyer, Nina Godtfredsen, Thomas Kallemose, Anne Frølich

Abstract

Rehabilitation of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a key treatment in COPD. However, despite the existing evidence and a strong recommendation from lung associations worldwide, 50% of patients with COPD decline to participate in COPD rehabilitation program and 30-50% drop-out before completion. The main reasons are severe symptoms, inflexible accessibility and necessity for transportation. Currently there are no well-established and evident rehabilitation alternatives. Supervised online screen rehabilitation could be a useful approach to increase accessibility and compliance. The aim of this multicenter RCT study is to compare the potential benefits of a 10-week online COPD rehabilitation program (CORe) with conventional outpatient COPD rehabilitation (CCRe). This study is a randomized assessor- and statistician blinded superiority multicenter trial with two parallel groups, employing 1:1 allocation to the intervention and the comparison group.On the basis of a sample size calculation, 134 patients with severe or very severe COPD and eligible to conventional hospital based outpatient COPD rehabilitation will be included and randomized from eight different hospitals. The CORe intervention group receives group supervised resistance- and endurance training and patient education, 60 min, three times/week for 10 weeks at home via online-screen. The CCRe comparison group receives group based supervised resistance- and endurance training and patient education, 90 min, two times/week for 10 weeks (two hospitals) or 12 weeks (six hospitals) in groups at the local hospital. The primary outcome is change in the 6-min walking distance after 10/12 weeks; the secondary outcomes are changes in 30 s sit-to-stand chair test, physical activity level, symptoms, anxiety and depression symptoms, disease specific and generic quality of life. Primary endpoint is 10/12 weeks from baseline, while secondary endpoints are 22, 36, 62 weeks from baseline assessments. The study will likely contribute to knowledge regarding COPD tele-rehabilitation and to which extent it is more feasible and thereby more efficient than conventional COPD rehabilitation in patients with severe and very severe COPD. Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02667171 . Registration data: January 28th 2016.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 413 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 413 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 58 14%
Student > Bachelor 47 11%
Researcher 37 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 5%
Other 61 15%
Unknown 165 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 71 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 67 16%
Sports and Recreations 22 5%
Psychology 15 4%
Social Sciences 9 2%
Other 44 11%
Unknown 185 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 November 2017.
All research outputs
#17,920,654
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#1,285
of 1,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#211,349
of 294,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#50
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,950 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 294,546 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.