Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Aug 12;22(1):1028.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08345-z.

Effectiveness comparison of inpatient vs. outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation: a systematic review

Virginie Molinier #  1   2 , François Alexandre #  3   4 , Nelly Heraud  3   4
Affiliations

Effectiveness comparison of inpatient vs. outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation: a systematic review

Virginie Molinier et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is the cornerstone of nonpharmacological treatments in chronic respiratory disease (CRD) management. PR can be performed in different settings, the most frequent of which are inpatient (inPR) and outpatient (outPR) management. In the literature, these two distinct modalities are generally considered to be the same intervention. Yet, they differ in terms of the length of stay, social support, and the time the patient is not in their normal environment, and the presumed absence of differences in terms of efficacy has never been established.

Purpose: To identify studies that directly compared the effects of inPR and outPR on patients with all types of CRDs through a systematic review and to synthesize the evidence regarding the effectiveness comparison of both modalities.

Methods: A literature search was performed on PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library on 24 March 2022. The inclusion criteria were: articles with adults with chronic respiratory disease and comparing inPR versus outPR in at least one PR outcome.

Results: Seven hundred thirty-six articles were retrieved from the databases. Six retrospective articles met the inclusion criteria. A best-evidence synthesis (BES) was carried out. Eight outcomes could be found in the included papers. For healthcare burden and refusals, no data could be extracted, and thus no BES was performed. For the eight remaining outcomes, two results were in favor of inPR with moderate evidence (HRQoL and psychological status), three were in favor of no difference between inPR and outPR with moderate or limited evidence (muscle strength, dropouts/adherence, and survival status), and three led to conflicting results (exercise tolerance, dyspnea, and economic costs).

Conclusion: With the current state of knowledge, the majority of the studies converge towards an absence of differences between inPR and outPR or in favor of inPR for seven out of eight outcomes, albeit with moderate, limited, or conflicting evidence. The greater effectiveness of inPR for some outcomes will have to be confirmed in a well-designed RCT in order to orient public health policies in terms of the development of PR with the best evidence-based medicine approach.

Trial registration: PROSPERO: CRD42020166546 .

Keywords: COPD; Chronic respiratory disease; Effectiveness; Pulmonary rehabilitation settings.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA Flow Diagram
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. 2022 Global strategy for prevention, diagnosis and management of COPD. 2021.
    1. Spruit MA, Singh SJ, Garvey C, ZuWallack R, Nici L, Rochester 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(8):e13–e64. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201309-1634ST. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cox NS, Dal Corso S, Hansen H, McDonald CF, Hill CJ, Zanaboni P, et al. Telerehabilitation for chronic respiratory disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021;(1). - PMC - PubMed
    1. Liu XL, Tan JY, Wang T, Zhang Q, Zhang M, Yao LQ, et al. Effectiveness of home-based pulmonary rehabilitation for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Rehabilitation Nursing. 2014;39(1):36–59. doi: 10.1002/rnj.112. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Neves LF, Reis MH, Gonçalves TR. Home or community-based pulmonary rehabilitation for individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cadernos de saude publica. 2016;32:e00085915. - PubMed

Publication types