Skip to main content
. 2020 Nov 1;76(3):264–271. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-215281

Table 4.

Comparison of clinical outcomes following pulmonary rehabilitation between PR-min and PR-gym groups

Change with PR Between-group differences Test statistic P value
PR- min
(n=204)
PR-gym
(n=232)
ISW (m) 56.6 (47.8 to 65.4) 59.7 (50.9 to 68.6) −3.1 (−15.6 to 9.4) −0.49 0.63
CRQ-dyspnoea 5.8 (4.9 to 6.7) 4.2 (3.4 to 5.0) 1.6 (0.4 to 2.8) 2.63 0.009
CRQ-fatigue 2.8 (2.1 to 3.4) 3.0 (2.4 to 3.6) −0.2 (−1.1 to 0.7) −0.51 0.61
CRQ-emotion 4.3 (3.2 to 5.3) 4.3 (3.3 to 5.3) −0.02 (−1.5 to 1.4) −0.04 0.97
CRQ-mastery 2.6 (1.9 to 3.2) 3.0 (2.4 to 3.7) −0.4 (−1.4 to 0.5) −0.90 0.37
CRQ-total 15.5 (12.9 to 18.2) 14.6 (12.2 to 17.2) 0.9 (−2.7 to 4.5) 0.49 0.62

Data expressed as mean (95% CI) or median (25th and 75th percentiles) pre-to-post PR.

Data were analysed using independent t-tests (or Mann-Whitney U test for data that were not normally distributed). All participants had data for each of the listed variables.

CRQ, Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire; ISW, incremental shuttle walk; PR, pulmonary rehabilitation; PR-gym, pulmonary rehabilitation using specialist equipment; PR-min, pulmonary rehabilitation using minimal equipment.