Dyspnea

Objective To identify the most accurate clinical examination, radiographic, and laboratory findings for assessing volume overload in nonintubated patients.

Data Sources and Study Selection MEDLINE was searched (1946 to January 6, 2026) to identify peer-reviewed English-language studies about the diagnostic accuracy of the clinical examination of spontaneously breathing patients with intravascular volume overload.

Data Extraction and Synthesis Three authors independently extracted data for each finding and calculated sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios (LRs). A 2-level mixed logistic regression model was used to pool estimates.

Results Forty studies, involving 11 490 adult patients, were included, with a prevalence of volume overload of 35% to 69%. Thirty-three of those studies evaluated patients with dyspnea. Prevalence of volume overload was more likely when the physical examination revealed jugular venous distention with the highest point of pulsation more than 3 cm in a vertical line above the sternal angle (LR, 4.1 [95% CI, 2.9-5.6]; specificity, 92%), lower extremity edema (LR, 2.2 [95% CI, 1.5-3.1]; specificity, 80%), or crackles on auscultation (LR, 2.7 [95% CI, 1.7-4.5]; specificity, 81%). Vascular congestion on chest radiography increased the likelihood of intravascular volume overload (LR, 5.9 [95% CI, 2.9-12.0]; specificity, 91%). Point-of-care ultrasonography that identified bilateral pulmonary B-lines suggested volume overload (LR, 4.0 [95% CI, 2.6-6.1]; specificity, 77%), and absence of pulmonary B-lines made volume overload unlikely (LR, 0.09 [95% CI, 0.04-0.23]; sensitivity, 93%). Inferior vena cava collapsibility index of less than 50% increased the likelihood of volume overload (LR, 3.9 [95% CI, 2.5-6.1]; specificity, 79%), and a collapsibility index of at least 50% made it less likely (LR, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.11-0.45]; sensitivity, 82%). Point-of-care ultrasonographic measurement of jugular venous pressure (JVP; >8 cm) also increased the likelihood of volume overload (LR, 2.8 [95% CI, 2.2-3.5]; specificity, 71%), although JVP of 8 cm or less identified patients less likely to have volume overload (LR, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.20-0.33]; sensitivity, 81%). A plasma brain-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) level of 100 ng/mL or higher was the single best test to identify those most likely to have volume overload (LR, 6.9 [95% CI, 2.4-20.4]; specificity, 87%), and a normal value made it less likely (LR, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.08-0.24]; sensitivity, 87%).

Conclusions and Relevance A BNP level of 100 ng/mL or higher and presence of vascular congestion on chest radiography may be the most useful tests to identify patients with volume overload. Absence of pulmonary B-lines using point-of-care ultrasonography or BNP levels of less than 100 ng/mL may be most useful to exclude volume overload.

Author/s:

Benjamin Drum, Bryce La Course, Mark Kelly

What Is Interstitial Lung Disease?

Megan George — Sun, 06 Jul 2025 19:15:20 +0000

Date Added:

July 6, 2025

Journal/Publication:

JAMA Patient Page

Publication Date:

July 3, 2025

Type:

Patient Education Materials

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

doi: 10.1001/jama.2025.9804

Keywords

pulmonary medicine

Patient Information

jama Patient Information

PMID (1):

40608333

MeSH

Lung Diseases, Interstitial

Dyspnea

Lung Diseases

Connective Tissue Diseases

Oxygen Saturation

A summary for patients about interstitial lung disease. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

View

This JAMA Patient Page describes types and causes of interstitial lung disease as well as its diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis.

Author/s:

Amy E. Varghese, MD, Christopher D. Jackson, MD, Julio Lanfranco, MD, MPH

Tilt Table Testing

Alex Haga — Tue, 23 Apr 2024 17:41:24 +0000

Date Added:

April 23, 2024

Journal/Publication:

JAMA

Publisher:

JAMA

Publication Date:

April 11, 2024

URL:

Tilt Table Testing

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1001/jama.2024.0004

Keywords

Cardiac Catheterization

PMID (1):

38602671

MeSH

hydrocortisone

Methacholine Chloride

Cardiac Catheterization

A summary and example of how to use tilt table testing in patients with syncope and various other fairly common symptoms. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Commercial full text (fees may apply)

View

A 43-year-old woman presented with a 1-year history of recurring symptoms of sudden onset of fatigue, palpitations, dyspnea, chest pain, lightheadedness, and nausea that were associated with standing and resolved with sitting. These symptoms began 1 month after mild COVID-19 infection. At presentation, while supine, blood pressure (BP) was 123/70 mm Hg and heart rate (HR) was 90/min; while seated, BP was 120/80 and HR was 93/min; after standing for 1 minute, BP was 124/80 and HR was 119/min. Physical examination results were normal. Oxygen saturation was 98% at rest while breathing room air. She had no oxygen desaturation during a 6-minute walk test but walked only 282 m (45% predicted). Complete blood cell count, morning cortisol, and thyrotropin blood levels were normal. Electrocardiogram (ECG), chest computed tomography, pulmonary function testing, methacholine challenge, bronchoscopy, echocardiography, and cardiac catheterization findings were normal. During tilt table testing, the patient experienced lightheadedness and nausea when moved from horizontal to the upright position. Results of the tilt table test are shown in the Table and Figure.

Author/s:

Chesire, W.P., Dudenkov, D.V., Munipalli, B.

Tilt Table Testing

Alex Haga — Tue, 23 Apr 2024 17:40:59 +0000

Date Added:

April 23, 2024

Journal/Publication:

JAMA

Publisher:

JAMA

Publication Date:

April 11, 2024

URL:

Tilt Table Testing

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1001/jama.2024.0004

Keywords

Cardiac Catheterization

PMID (1):

38602671

MeSH

hydrocortisone

Methacholine Chloride

Cardiac Catheterization

A summary and example of how to use tilt table testing in patients with syncope and various other fairly common symptoms. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Commercial full text (fees may apply)

View

Author/s:

Chesire, W.P., Dudenkov, D.V., Munipalli, B.

Incidence, co-occurrence, and evolution of long-COVID features: A 6-month retrospective cohort study of 273,618 survivors of COVID-19

Bethie Seay — Tue, 05 Oct 2021 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

October 5, 2021

Journal/Publication:

PLOS Medicine

Publication Date:

September 28, 2021

Issue:

Volume:

Type:

Clinical Research Results

DOI (1):

10.1371/journal.pmed.1003773

An assessment of the epidemiology and characteristics of long COVID syndrome from nearly 275,000 linked electronic records.

View

Background
Long-COVID refers to a variety of symptoms affecting different organs reported by people following Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. To date, there have been no robust estimates of the incidence and co-occurrence of long-COVID features, their relationship to age, sex, or severity of infection, and the extent to which they are specific to COVID-19. The aim of this study is to address these issues.

Methods and findings
We conducted a retrospective cohort study based on linked electronic health records (EHRs) data from 81 million patients including 273,618 COVID-19 survivors. The incidence and co-occurrence within 6 months and in the 3 to 6 months after COVID-19 diagnosis were calculated for 9 core features of long-COVID (breathing difficulties/breathlessness, fatigue/malaise, chest/throat pain, headache, abdominal symptoms, myalgia, other pain, cognitive symptoms, and anxiety/depression). Their co-occurrence network was also analyzed. Comparison with a propensity score–matched cohort of patients diagnosed with influenza during the same time period was achieved using Kaplan–Meier analysis and the Cox proportional hazard model. The incidence of atopic dermatitis was used as a negative control.

Among COVID-19 survivors (mean [SD] age: 46.3 [19.8], 55.6% female), 57.00% had one or more long-COVID feature recorded during the whole 6-month period (i.e., including the acute phase), and 36.55% between 3 and 6 months. The incidence of each feature was: abnormal breathing (18.71% in the 1- to 180-day period; 7.94% in the 90- to180-day period), fatigue/malaise (12.82%; 5.87%), chest/throat pain (12.60%; 5.71%), headache (8.67%; 4.63%), other pain (11.60%; 7.19%), abdominal symptoms (15.58%; 8.29%), myalgia (3.24%; 1.54%), cognitive symptoms (7.88%; 3.95%), and anxiety/depression (22.82%; 15.49%). All 9 features were more frequently reported after COVID-19 than after influenza (with an overall excess incidence of 16.60% and hazard ratios between 1.44 and 2.04, all p < 0.001), co-occurred more commonly, and formed a more interconnected network. Significant differences in incidence and co-occurrence were associated with sex, age, and illness severity. Besides the limitations inherent to EHR data, limitations of this study include that (i) the findings do not generalize to patients who have had COVID-19 but were not diagnosed, nor to patients who do not seek or receive medical attention when experiencing symptoms of long-COVID; (ii) the findings say nothing about the persistence of the clinical features; and (iii) the difference between cohorts might be affected by one cohort seeking or receiving more medical attention for their symptoms.

Conclusions
Long-COVID clinical features occurred and co-occurred frequently and showed some specificity to COVID-19, though they were also observed after influenza. Different long-COVID clinical profiles were observed based on demographics and illness severity.

Author summary
Why was this study done?
Long-COVID has been described in recent studies. But we do not know the risk of developing features of this condition and how it is affected by factors such as age, sex, or severity of infection.
We do not know if the risk of having features of long-COVID is more likely after Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) than after influenza.
We do not know about the extent to which different features of long-COVID co-occur.
What did the researchers do and find?
This research used data from electronic health records of 273,618 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and estimated the risk of having long-COVID features in the 6 months after a diagnosis of COVID-19. It compared the risk of long-COVID features in different groups within the population and also compared the risk to that after influenza.
The research found that over 1 in 3 patients had one or more features of long-COVID recorded between 3 and 6 months after a diagnosis of COVID-19. This was significantly higher than after influenza.
For 2 in 5 of the patients who had long-COVID features in the 3- to 6-month period, they had no record of any such feature in the previous 3 months.
The risk of long-COVID features was higher in patients who had more severe COVID-19 illness, and slightly higher among females and young adults. White and non-white patients were equally affected.
What do these findings mean?
Knowing the risk of long-COVID features helps in planning the relevant healthcare service provision.
The fact that the risk is higher after COVID-19 than after influenza suggests that their origin might, in part, directly involve infection with SARS-CoV-2 and is not just a general consequence of viral infection. This might help in developing effective treatments against long-COVID.
The findings in the subgroups, and the fact that the majority of patients who have features of long-COVID in the 3- to 6-month period already had symptoms in the first 3 months, may help in identifying those at greatest risk.

Author/s:

Taquet, M., Dercon, Q., Luciano, S., Geddes, J. R., Husain, M., Harrison, P. J.

Interventions for Breathlessness in Patients With Advanced Cancer

Brian Desmarais — Tue, 01 Dec 2020 16:38:27 +0000

Date Added:

December 1, 2020

Journal/Publication:

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Publication Date:

November 11, 2020

URL:

Interventions for Breathlessness in Patients With Advanced Cancer

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.23970/AHRQEPCCER232

MeSH

In end-stage cancer patients with breathlessness, the evidence supporting non-pharmacologic interventions is stronger than the evidence for pharmacologic strategies. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Main Points

For patients with advanced cancer:

Airflow interventions (fans) were more effective for improving breathlessness compared with usual care or sham.
Bilevel ventilation (a form of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation) was more effective than standard supplemental oxygen for improving breathlessness.
Acupressure/reflexology were more effective than usual care or sham for improving breathlessness.
Neither behavioral/psychoeducational interventions alone nor activity/rehabilitation interventions alone were more effective than usual care for improving breathlessness. However, multicomponent nonpharmacological interventions that combined these, with integrative medicine interventions, were more effective than usual care for improving breathlessness.
Opioids were not more effective than placebo or anxiolytics for improving breathlessness or exercise capacity; most of these studies in advanced cancer were of exertional breathlessness. Studies on opioids showed no differences in effectiveness between different doses or routes of administration for improving breathlessness.
Anxiolytics were not more effective than placebo for improving breathlessness.
Both nonpharmacological and pharmacological interventions led to adverse event-related dropouts in a small percentage of patients.

Structured Abstract

Objectives. To assess benefits and harms of nonpharmacological and pharmacological interventions for breathlessness in adults with advanced cancer.

Data sources. We searched PubMed®, Embase®, CINAHL®, ISI Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through early May 2020.

Review methods. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies with a comparison group evaluating benefits and/or harms, and cohort studies reporting harms. Two reviewers independently screened search results, serially abstracted data, assessed risk of bias, and graded strength of evidence (SOE) for key outcomes: breathlessness, anxiety, health-related quality of life, and exercise capacity. We performed meta-analyses when possible and calculated standardized mean differences (SMDs).

Results. We included 48 RCTs and 2 retrospective cohort studies (4,029 patients). The most commonly reported cancer types were lung cancer and mesothelioma. The baseline level of breathlessness varied in severity. Several nonpharmacological interventions were effective for breathlessness, including fans (SMD -2.09 [95% confidence interval (CI) -3.81 to -0.37]) (SOE: moderate), bilevel ventilation (estimated slope difference -0.58 [95% CI -0.92 to -0.23]), acupressure/reflexology, and multicomponent nonpharmacological interventions (behavioral/psychoeducational combined with activity/rehabilitation and integrative medicine). For pharmacological interventions, opioids were not more effective than placebo (SOE: moderate) for improving breathlessness (SMD -0.14 [95% CI -0.47 to 0.18]) or exercise capacity (SOE: moderate); most studies were of exertional breathlessness. Different doses or routes of administration of opioids did not differ in effectiveness for breathlessness (SOE: low). Anxiolytics were not more effective than placebo for breathlessness (SOE: low). Evidence for other pharmacological interventions was limited. Opioids, bilevel ventilation, and activity/rehabilitation interventions had some harms compared to usual care.

Conclusions. Some nonpharmacological interventions, including fans, acupressure/reflexology, multicomponent interventions, and bilevel ventilation, were effective for breathlessness in advanced cancer. Evidence did not support opioids or other pharmacological interventions within the limits of the identified studies. More research is needed on when the benefits of opioids may exceed harms for broader, longer term outcomes related to breathlessness in this population.

Author/s:

Gupta, A., Waldfogel, J.M., Sharma, R., Feliciano, J.L., Sedhom, R., Day, J., Gersten, R.A., Davidson, P.M.

Bronchoscopic Lung Volume Reduction: A New Hope for Patients With Severe Emphysema and Air Trapping

Brian Desmarais — Mon, 31 Aug 2020 21:38:45 +0000

Date Added:

August 31, 2020

Journal/Publication:

Mayo Clinic proceedings

Publication Date:

August 20, 2020

URL:

Bronchoscopic Lung Volume Reduction: A New Hope for Patients With Severe Emphysema and Air Trapping

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2020.03.027

MeSH

Residual Volume

Pneumonectomy

Cost-Benefit Analysis

cause of death

Pulmonary Emphysema

pulmonary disease, chronic obstructive

Lung Volume Measurements

Lung

Dyspnea

Emphysema

referral and consultation

This relatively new procedure is probably worth knowing about. I’m not sure where, other than Mayo, it is being done. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is common and has significant morbidity and mortality as the fourth leading cause of death in the United States. In many patients, particularly those with emphysema, COPD is characterized by markedly increased residual volume contributing to exertional dyspnea. Current therapies have limited efficacy. Surgical resection of diseased areas of the lung to reduce residual volume was effective in identified subgroups but also had significant mortality in and suboptimal cost effectiveness. Lung-volume reduction, using bronchoscopic techniques, has shown substantial benefits in a broader patient population with less morbidity and mortality. This review is meant to spread the awareness about bronchoscopic lung-volume reduction and to promote its consideration and early referral for patients with advanced COPD and emphysema frequently encountered by both primary care physicians and specialists. A search was conducted on PubMed (MEDLINE), EMbase, and Cochrane library for original studies, using the following keywords: "lung-volume reduction." "endobronchial valves," "intrabronchial valves," "bronchoscopic lung-volume reduction," and "endoscopic lung-volume reduction." We included reports from systematic reviews, narrative reviews, clinical trials, and observational studies. Two reviewers evaluated potential references. A total of 27 references were included in our review. Included studies report experience in the diagnosis and bronchoscopic treatment for emphysema; case reports and non-English or non-Spanish studies were excluded.

Author/s:

Abia-Trujillo, David, Johnson, Margaret M, Patel, Neal M, Hazelett, Britney, Eric S Edell, Kern, Ryan

Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Children — United States, February 12–April 2, 2020

Brian Desmarais — Tue, 07 Apr 2020 15:08:15 +0000

Date Added:

April 7, 2020

Journal/Publication:

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report

Publisher:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Publication Date:

April 6, 2020

URL:

Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Children — United States, February 12–April 2, 2020

Type:

Public Health Announcements

Format:

Web Page

MeSH

severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

Coronavirus Infections

Public Health Practice

Respiratory System

This is a summary of what we now know about COVID19 infections in children. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Summary

What is already known about this topic?

Data from China suggest that pediatric coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases might be less severe than cases in adults and that children (persons aged <18 years) might experience different symptoms than adults.

What is added by this report?

In this preliminary description of pediatric U.S. COVID-19 cases, relatively few children with COVID-19 are hospitalized, and fewer children than adults experience fever, cough, or shortness of breath. Severe outcomes have been reported in children, including three deaths.

What are the implications for public health practice?

Pediatric COVID-19 patients might not have fever or cough. Social distancing and everyday preventive behaviors remain important for all age groups because patients with less serious illness and those without symptoms likely play an important role in disease transmission.

Author/s:

CDC COVID-19 Response Team

Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study

John Bayhi — Fri, 14 Feb 2020 17:29:39 +0000

Date Added:

February 14, 2020

Journal/Publication:

Lancet

Publisher:

Elsevier Ltd.

Publication Date:

February 15, 2020

Issue:

10223

Volume:

395

Pages:

507-513

URL:

Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study

Type:

Clinical Research Results

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30211-7

Keywords

coronavirus

2019-nCOV

2019 novel coronavirus

pneumonia

China

PMID (1):

32007143

I thought you might want to see this information regarding the presentations of patients with the novel coronavirus. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

BACKGROUND:

In December, 2019, a pneumonia associated with the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) emerged in Wuhan, China. We aimed to further clarify the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 2019-nCoV pneumonia.

METHODS:

In this retrospective, single-centre study, we included all confirmed cases of 2019-nCoV in Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital from Jan 1 to Jan 20, 2020. Cases were confirmed by real-time RT-PCR and were analysed for epidemiological, demographic, clinical, and radiological features and laboratory data. Outcomes were followed up until Jan 25, 2020.

FINDINGS:

Of the 99 patients with 2019-nCoV pneumonia, 49 (49%) had a history of exposure to the Huanan seafood market. The average age of the patients was 55·5 years (SD 13·1), including 67 men and 32 women. 2019-nCoV was detected in all patients by real-time RT-PCR. 50 (51%) patients had chronic diseases. Patients had clinical manifestations of fever (82 [83%] patients), cough (81 [82%] patients), shortness of breath (31 [31%] patients), muscle ache (11 [11%] patients), confusion (nine [9%] patients), headache (eight [8%] patients), sore throat (five [5%] patients), rhinorrhoea (four [4%] patients), chest pain (two [2%] patients), diarrhoea (two [2%] patients), and nausea and vomiting (one [1%] patient). According to imaging examination, 74 (75%) patients showed bilateral pneumonia, 14 (14%) patients showed multiple mottling and ground-glass opacity, and one (1%) patient had pneumothorax. 17 (17%) patients developed acute respiratory distress syndrome and, among them, 11 (11%) patients worsened in a short period of time and died of multiple organ failure.

INTERPRETATION:

The 2019-nCoV infection was of clustering onset, is more likely to affect older males with comorbidities, and can result in severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome. In general, characteristics of patients who died were in line with the MuLBSTA score, an early warning model for predicting mortality in viral pneumonia. Further investigation is needed to explore the applicability of the MuLBSTA score in predicting the risk of mortality in 2019-nCoV infection.

FUNDING:

National Key R&D Program of China.

Author/s:

Chen, N, Zhou, M, Dong, X, Qu, J, Gong, F, Han, Y, Qiu, Y, Wang, J, Liu, Y, Wei, Y, Xia, J, Yu, T, Zhang, X, Zhang, L

Pharmacologic and Nonpharmacologic Therapies in Adult Patients With Exacerbation of COPD: A Systematic Review

John Bayhi — Fri, 18 Oct 2019 13:01:46 +0000

Date Added:

October 18, 2019

Journal/Publication:

AHRQ Website

Publisher:

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Publication Date:

October 11, 2019

URL:

Pharmacologic and Nonpharmacologic Therapies in Adult Patients With Exacerbation of COPD

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.23970/AHRQEPCCER221

Keywords

copd

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

therapy

randomized control trial

systematic review

Key points are on page ii. Antibiotics and corticosteroids and some non-pharmacologic strategies are effective. We still don’t know the best corticosteroid dose or route. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

Objectives. To synthesize existing knowledge about the effectiveness and harms of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (ECOPD).

Data sources. Embase®, Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE® Daily, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Registrar of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus from database inception to January 2, 2019.

Review methods. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated pharmacologic intervention or nonpharmacologic interventions for ECOPD. The strength of evidence (SOE) was graded for critical final health outcomes.

Results. We included 98 RCTs (13,401 patients, mean treatment duration 9.9 days, mean followup 3.7 months). Final health outcomes, including mortality, resolution of exacerbation, hospital readmissions, repeat exacerbations, and need for intubation, were infrequently evaluated and often showed no statistically significant differences between groups. Antibiotic therapy increases the clinical cure rate and reduces the clinical failure rate regardless of the severity of ECOPD (moderate SOE). There is insufficient evidence to support a particular antibiotic regimen. Oral and intravenous corticosteroids improve dyspnea and reduce the clinical failure rate (low SOE). Despite the ubiquitous use of inhaled bronchodilators in ECOPD, we found only a small number of trials that assessed lung function tests, and not final health outcomes. The evidence is insufficient to support the effect of aminophyllines, magnesium sulfate, mucolytics, inhaled corticosteroids, inhaled antibiotics, 5-lipoxygenase inhibitor, and statins on final health outcomes. Titrated oxygen reduces mortality compared with high flow oxygen (low SOE). Low SOE suggested benefit from some nonpharmacologic interventions such as chest physiotherapy using vibration/percussion/massage or breathing technique (on dyspnea), resistance training (on dyspnea and quality of life), early pulmonary rehabilitation commenced before hospital discharge during the initial most acute phase of exacerbation rather than the convalescence period (on dyspnea) and whole body vibration training (on quality of life). Vitamin D supplementation may improve quality of life (low SOE).

Conclusions. Although chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a common condition, the evidence base for most interventions in ECOPD remains limited. Systemic antibiotics and corticosteroids are associated with improved outcomes in mild and moderate to severe ECOPD. Titrated oxygen reduces mortality. Future research is required to assess the effectiveness of several emerging nonpharmacologic and dietary treatments.

Author/s:

Dobler, CC, Morrow, AS, Farah, MH, Beuschel, B, Majzoub, AM, Wilson, ME, Hasan, B, Seisa, MO, Daraz, L, Prokop, LJ, Murad, MH, Wang, Z