↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Exercise-based rehabilitation programmes for pulmonary hypertension

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

72 tweeters
5 Facebook pages


93 Dimensions

Readers on

334 Mendeley
Exercise-based rehabilitation programmes for pulmonary hypertension
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011285.pub2
Pubmed ID

Norman R Morris, Fiona D Kermeen, Anne E Holland


Individuals with pulmonary hypertension (PH) have reduced exercise capacity and quality of life. Despite initial concerns that exercise training may worsen symptoms in this group, several studies have reported improvements in functional capacity and well-being following exercise-based rehabilitation in PH. To assess the efficacy and safety of exercise-based rehabilitation for people with PH. Primary outcomes were exercise capacity, adverse events during the intervention period and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Secondary outcomes included cardiopulmonary haemodynamics, functional class, clinical worsening during follow-up, mortality and changes in B-type natriuretic peptide. We searched the Cochrane Airways Specialised Register of Trials up to August 2016, which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, AMED, Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and registries of clinical trials. In addition we searched CENTRAL and the PEDro database up to August 2016 and handsearched relevant journals. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on exercise-based rehabilitation programmes for PH. Two reviewers extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated odds ratios and their 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a random-effects model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE. We included six RCTs and were able to extract data from five studies. The majority of participants were Group I pulmonary artery hypertension (PAH). Study duration ranged from three to 15 weeks. Exercise programmes included both inpatient- and outpatient-based rehabilitation that incorporated both upper and lower limb exercise. The mean six-minute walk distance following exercise training was 60.12 metres higher than control (30.17 to 90.07 metres, n = 165, 5 RCTs, low-quality evidence; minimal important difference was 30 metres), the mean peak oxygen uptake was 2.4 ml/kg/minute higher (1.4 to 3.4 ml/kg/min, n = 145, 4 RCTs, low-quality evidence) and the mean peak power in the intervention groups was 16.4 W higher (10.9 to 22.0 higher, n = 145, 4 RCTs, low-quality evidence). The mean change in HRQoL for the SF-36 physical component score was 4.63 points higher (0.80 to 8.47 points, n = 33, 2 RCTs, low-quality evidence) and for the SF-36 mental component score was 4.17 points higher (0.01 to 8.34 points; n = 33; 2 RCTs, low-quality evidence). One study reported a single adverse event, where a participant stopped exercise training due to lightheadedness. In people with PH, exercise-based rehabilitation results in clinically relevant improvements in exercise capacity. Exercise training was not associated with any serious adverse events. Whilst most studies reported improvements in HRQoL, these may not be clinically important. Overall, we assessed the quality of the evidence to be low. The small number of studies and lack of information on participant selection makes it difficult to generalise these results across the spectrum of people with PH.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 72 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 334 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 333 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 56 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 11%
Student > Bachelor 35 10%
Student > Postgraduate 24 7%
Other 19 6%
Other 74 22%
Unknown 90 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 108 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 53 16%
Psychology 13 4%
Social Sciences 6 2%
Unspecified 6 2%
Other 37 11%
Unknown 111 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. 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 14 October 2022.
All research outputs
of 22,867,327 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,325 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 417,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 276 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,867,327 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,325 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
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 417,886 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 276 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.