We have carefully read and evaluated the letter writ¬ten by Drs Mungmunpuntipantip and Wiwanitkit regarding our article published in the July issue of Rambam Maimonides Medical Journal.
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were elaborated to allow authors of such papers to identify quality articles for inclusion in their scholarly work. However, we have identified several issues that point to an over-reliance on the PRISMA guidelines. Firstly, we question the rigor of implementation by authors and the rigor of verification by peer reviewers and editors, and whether they have screened papers to ensure adherence to the PRISMA guidelines. Secondly, we have identified cases where the PRISMA criteria led to as much as 99.97% of the published literature being ignored, suggesting that valid publications meeting these criteria might be at risk of being ignored. Thirdly, we have noted that exclusion is not only a quantitative problem—it is also a qualitative one, since the screening procedure groups all non-conforming literature into one basket. Fourthly, we have noted that seven copies of the PRISMA guidelines exist. This being the case, which one should be cited? To replace over-reliance on PRISMA screening, we encourage authors, peer reviewers, and editors to publish systematic reviews and meta-analyses that respect the dual criteria of scientific plausibility and diversity of included papers.
Background: Chronic respiratory diseases, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), significantly impact patients’ quality of life by limiting physical function, mobility, and overall well-being. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), particularly home-based programs, has emerged as a vital non-pharmacological intervention to address these limitations. However, comprehensive assessments of the impact of home-based PR on both lung function and disability in COPD patients remain limited.
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a 12-week home-based PR program on pulmonary function and disability in COPD patients, using pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) to assess outcomes across multiple domains.
Methods: A prospective, single-arm pre–post interventional study was conducted among 62 COPD patients at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur. Participants completed a 12-week home-based PR program, which included endurance exercises, breathing techniques, and self-management education. Pulmonary function tests were conducted, and disability levels were assessed using WHODAS 2.0 at baseline and after completing the program.
Results: Improvements were observed in pulmonary function, with forced vital capacity (FVC), and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), showing substantial increases (FVC: 2.50±0.43 L to 2.85±0.59 L; FEV1 1.53±0.33 L to 1.63±0.34 L; P<0.001). The WHODAS 2.0 scores demonstrated notable reductions in disability, particularly in the life activities and participation domains (P<0.001). Cognitive and self-care scores remained stable, while improvements in mobility were observed but not significant. Regression analysis revealed a strong negative correlation between increases in FVC and reductions in WHODAS 2.0 total scores (r=-0.65), highlighting FVC as a key predictor of disability reduction.
Conclusion: The 12-week home-based PR program improved lung function and reduced disability in COPD patients. These findings support the role of home-based PR as a viable, patient-centered alternative to traditional rehabilitation, addressing both physical and social dimensions of health. Future research should focus on long-term outcomes, the potential for broader implementation, and expanding access to underserved populations.
Dear Editor, ... The recommendation by Roth and Wald to en-force stricter regalia policies and uphold profession-alism at commencements is crucial. However, such measures should be complemented by proactive educational interventions. ...
The recently published paper “US Medical Schools’ 2024 Commencements and Antisemitism: Addressing Unprofessional Behavior” discusses antisemitism expressions and unprofessional behavior in US medical schools’ 2024 commencement ceremony. While we share the authors’ concerns regarding rising antisemitic, anti-Palestinian and anti-Muslim bias, alongside hateful behavior toward minorities and immigrants in the US in general and in medical schools in particular, we are also concerned about the significant bias informing this paper. The authors mistakenly conflate antisemitism with harsh criticism of Israeli government and the actions of its military, and legitimate acts of solidarity with people under oppression. This fallacy is further aggravated by serious concerns (mentioned by the authors themselves) involving the paper’s methodological and statistical shortcomings. Ultimately, the paper lacks scientific rigor and appears to be ideologically motivated rather than a contribution to objective research. Scholars worldwide, Jews and Israelis amongst them, have demonstrated that these are legitimate protests, and the interpretation of their messaging as antisemitic is just another way to silence Palestinian voices calling for freedom and liberation, and delegitimizing critique on the Israeli government. This paper aims to provide the reader with currently published evidence and scientific controversy regarding this issue, that the discussed paper failed to mention.
