Systematic review and meta-analysis of pulmonary telerehabilitation versus center-based care in COPD

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a cornerstone of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management; however, access to traditional center-based PR (CBPR) remains limited. Digital and remote models, collectively termed pulmonary telerehabilitation (Tele-PR), have increasingly been used, but their heterogeneity in technology use, supervision, and interaction mode may influence effectiveness and sustainability. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and adherence of Tele-PR with those of CBPR in adults with COPD while systematically evaluating the impacts of supervision intensity and delivery models on key clinical outcomes. METHODS: This review followed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 and PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension) guidelines. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science were searched from inception to December 10, 2025, to identify randomized controlled trials comparing Tele-PR or home-based PR (HBPR) with CBPR in adults with COPD. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using τ², I², and 95% prediction intervals. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, and certainty of evidence was graded using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. RESULTS: Seventeen randomized controlled trials involving 1658 participants were included. After intervention, Tele-PR and CBPR showed comparable average effects on exercise capacity by 6-minute walk distance (k=9; n=950, 57.3%; mean difference -5.37 m, 95% CI -15.68 to 4.95; P=.26; τ²=103.97; I²=28.2%; 95% prediction intervals=-32.73 to 22.27). Although pooled effects were not statistically significant, substantial heterogeneity was observed across remote delivery models. Subgroup analyses linked digitally supported, synchronously supervised Tele-PR to less between-study variance across several outcomes, indicating greater consistency in treatment effects across different settings while revealing that low-technology HBPR yielded more variable outcomes, particularly in symptom burden. At long-term follow-up (≥6 mo), between-group differences in functional and symptom outcomes diminished, and short-term gains in exercise capacity did not consistently translate into increased daily physical activity. Certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to very low, mainly downgraded for performance bias, inconsistency across intervention models, and imprecision. CONCLUSIONS: Tele-PR may achieve short-term clinical outcomes comparable to CBPR. Distinct from prior reviews, we stratified remote programs by delivery models and supervision, identifying digitally supported Tele-PR and low-technology HBPR as 2 clinically distinct paradigms with differing consistency of effects. We further propose a structured "supervision gradient" to interpret model-dependent variability in effects across Tele-PR approaches, providing a context-sensitive framework for evidence-informed, model-specific implementation. Future remote rehabilitation should integrate real-time professional supervision and long-term behavioral maintenance to sustain benefits. Tele-PR may be particularly valuable for expanding PR access, while CBPR remains essential for patients requiring close in-person supervision or complex multidisciplinary care.