Pulmonary Rehabilitation Can Improve the Functional Capacity and Quality of Life for Pneumoconiosis Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Table 6

GRADE summary of primary outcomes.

PR compared to routine treatment for pneumoconiosis
Patient or population: patients with pneumoconiosis
Settings:
Intervention: PR
Comparison: routine treatment
Outcomes	Illustrative comparative risks (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	No. of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Routine treatment	PR
6MWD	The mean 6MWD ranged across control groups from -0.88 to 58.26	The mean 6MWD in the intervention groups was 69.10 higher (61.75 to 76.25 higher)		1049 (12 studies)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate^1
SGRQ	The mean SGRQ ranged across control groups from -1.79 to -0.02	The mean SGRQ in the intervention groups was 9.6 lower (16.4 to 2.8 lower)		540 (4 studies)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low^1,2

The basis for the assumed risk (e.g., the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. ¹No blind method and assignment concealment. ²High heterogeneity () was found.