PuSH - Publikationsserver des Helmholtz Zentrums München: In-patient pulmonary rehabilitation to improve asthma control.

Informationen

Hinweise zu Qualitätskriterien von Zeitschriften

Open-Access-Richtlinie der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft 2016

CC Licencences

Metriken für Publikationen

Navigation

Startseite

English

EVA: Veröffentlichen

Neuer EVA Antrag

Recherche

Erweiterte Suche

Durchblättern nach ...

... HMGU-Autoren/Konsortien

... Organisationsstruktur

... Zeitschriften

... Publikationstypen

... Forschungsdaten

... Arbeitsgruppen

... Erscheinungsjahr

Publikationen im Überblick

Statistik

HGF Fortschrittsbericht

OA Publikationen

Eintragen

Neue Publikation eintragen

Neue Publikation holen aus...

...EVA

Fehlende Publikation melden

Highlights

Suche

Hilfe & Kontakt

Ansprechpartner

Hilfe

Datenschutz

Helmholtz Open Science

Bibliometrische Indikatoren

SHERPA/RoMEO

DOAJ

Export:

Text

Endnote (RIS) BIB

BibTeX

Schultz, K.* ; Wittmann, M.* ; Wagner, R.* ; Lehbert, N.* ; Schwarzkopf, L. ; Szentes, B.L.* ; Nowak, D.* ; Faller, H.* ; Schuler, M.*

In-patient pulmonary rehabilitation to improve asthma control.

Dtsch. Arztebl. Int. 118, 23-30 (2021)

Verlagsversion

DOI

PMC

	Free journal

Open Access Green möglich sobald Postprint bei der ZB eingereicht worden ist.

Abstract
Metriken
Zusatzinfos

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of effective pharmaceutical treatment options, many patients with asthma do not manage to control their illness. This randomized trial with a waiting-list control group examined whether a 3-week course of inpatient pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) improves asthma control (primary endpoint) and other secondary endpoints (e.g., quality of life, cardinal symptoms, mental stress). The subsequent observational segment of the study investigated the long-term outcome after PR. METHODS: After approval of the rehabilitation´ by the insurance providers (T0), 412 adults with uncontrolled asthma (Asthma Control Test [ACT] score < 20 points) undergoing rehabilitation were assigned to either the intervention group (IG) or the waiting-list control group (CG). PR commenced 1 month (T1) after randomization in the IG and 5 months after randomization (T3) in the CG. Asthma control and the secondary endpoints were assessed 3 months after PR in the IG (T3) as an intention-to-treat analysis by means of analyses of covariance. Moreover, both groups were observed for a period of 12 months after the end of PR. RESULTS: At T3 the mean ACT score was 15.76 points in the CG, 20.38 points in the IG. The adjusted mean difference of 4.71 points was clinically relevant (95% confidence interval [3.99; 5.43]; effect size, Cohen's d = 1.27). The secondary endpoints also showed clinically relevant effects in favor of the IG. A year after the end of rehabilitation the mean ACT score was 19.00 points, still clinically relevant at 3.54 points higher than when rehabilitation began. Secondary endpoints such as quality of life and cardinal symptoms (dyspnea, cough, expectoration, pain) and self-management showed moderate to large effects. CONCLUSION: The trial showed that a 3-week course of PR leads to clinically relevant improvement in asthma control and secondary endpoints. Patients who do not achieve control of their asthma despite outpatient treatment therefore benefit from rehabilitation.

Impact Factor

Scopus SNIP

Web of Science
Times Cited

Scopus
Cited By

Altmetric

5.594

1.945