Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14583993›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2003

Inspiratory muscle training for asthma.

F S F Ram, S R Wellington, N C Barnes

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Interventions for managing asthma in pregnancy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  3. Inspiratory muscle training for asthma.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

F S F RamNational Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 27, Sussex Place, Regent's Park, London, UK, NW1 4RG.
S R Wellington
N C Barnes
Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders Clinic · GBLondon Chest Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease there is good evidence of a generalised loss of muscle bulk (including the respiratory muscles). It is possible that similar loss of respiratory muscle strength occur particularly in more severe asthma related in part to the effects of steroid therapy. Thus the respiratory muscle function may well be of relevance in asthma and if dysfunctional, may be a suitable target for training.

objectivesTo evaluate the efficacy of inspiratory muscle training with an external resistive device in patients with asthma. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2002), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2002), EMBASE (January 1985 to March 2002), CINAHL (to March 2002) and the UK National Research Register of trials (January 1982 to March 2002) and reference lists of articles. We also searched on line respiratory journals and contacted manufacturers of training devices to obtain trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised-controlled trials that involved the use of an external inspiratory muscle training device versus a control (sham or no inspiratory training device) were considered for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently selected articles for inclusion, evaluated methodological quality of the studies and abstracted data. MAIN

resultsFive studies were included in the review with four of the studies being produced by the same group. PI(max) (maximum inspiratory pressure) reported in three studies with 76 patients showed significant improvement with inspiratory muscle training when compared to the control group (WMD 23.07 cmH(2)O, 95%CI 15.65 to 30.50). Unfortunately, due to the paucity of included studies and data no other outcome was reported by more than one study. Therefore it is not possible to confirm whether this increase seen with PI(max) translates into any measurable clinical benefit. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsCurrently there is insufficient evidence to suggest that inspiratory muscle training provides any clinical benefit to patients with asthma. Due to the limited availability of studies in this area there is a need for further trials evaluating the efficacy of inspiratory muscle training devices in patients with asthma. These studies should investigate asthmatics with a range of severity. They should investigate clinically relevant outcomes such as lung function, symptoms, exacerbation rate and concomitant medications.

Indexed as

Breathing ExercisesRespiratory MusclesAsthmaHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRespiratory Therapy

Identifiers

PMID14583993
OpenAlexW1993335627

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.