Evidence Hub

Functional Measures in Non-COPD Chronic Respiratory Diseases: A Systematic Review

Camile Ludovico Zamboti, Heloise Angélico Pimpão, Larissa Dragonetti Bertin, Gabriela Garcia Krinski, Tathielle Garcia, Sandro Laerth Souza dos Santos Filho, Vinícius Cavalheri, Fabio de Oliveira Pitta et al.

Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2024

5 citations

Abstract

Background/Objectives: The extensive range of instruments designed for evaluating functional performance (FP) in chronic respiratory diseases (CRD) other than chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) presents a challenge in selecting the most appropriate one. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to summarise FP instruments, their measurement properties, their minimum clinically important differences, and their associations with CRD course-related events or prognosis in non-COPD CRD. Methods: Studies employing patient-reported or performance-based instruments to assess FP in non-COPD CRD were systematically identified in the PubMed, PEDro, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. COPD-exclusive studies or those solely reporting exercise capacity tests were excluded. Examination focused on measurement properties and associations with CRD course-related events or prognosis. The risk of bias was evaluated using the COSMIN, Downs and Black, and PEDro checklists based on the study design. Results: A total of 216 studies across seven CRD categories [asthma, bronchiectasis, cystic fibrosis, interstitial lung disease (ILD), pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), pre-/post-lung-transplantation] from various study types were included. Thirty-three instruments were identified, with the SF-36 questionnaire’s physical function domain being the most commonly used patient-reported tool. The 1 min sit-to-stand test was the most extensively studied performance-based measure, with its…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free