Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28302142›Full record

ReviewOrphanet journal of rare diseases2017

Maximum inspiratory pressure as a clinically meaningful trial endpoint for neuromuscular diseases: a comprehensive review of the literature.

Benedikt Schoser, Edward Fong, Tarekegn Geberhiwot, Derralynn Hughes, John T Kissel, Shyam C Madathil, David Orlikowski, Michael I Polkey, Mark Roberts, Harm A W M Tiddens and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Impaired lung function in multiple sclerosis: a single-center observational study in 371 persons.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2023
    Observational
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Benedikt SchoserFriedrich-Baur-Institute, Department of Neurology, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Ziemssenstr. 1a, D-80336, Munich, Germany. bschoser@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Edward FongDivision of Pediatric Pulmonology, Asthma, and Sleep Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, USA.
Tarekegn GeberhiwotUniversity Hospitals Birmingham, Selly Oak Hospital, Birmingham, UK.
Derralynn HughesDepartment of Haematology, Royal Free & University College Medical School, London, UK.
John T KisselDepartment of Neuroscience, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Shyam C MadathilDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, England, UK.
David OrlikowskiIntensive Care Unit and Home Ventilation Unit, Raymond Poincare Teaching Hospital, Garches, France.
Michael I PolkeyNIHR Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit of the Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust and Imperial College London, London, UK.
Mark RobertsGreater Manchester Neurosciences Unit, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK.
Harm A W M TiddensDepartment of Pediatric Pulmonology and Allergology, Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Peter YoungDepartment of Sleep Medicine and Neuromuscular Disorders, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Respiratory muscle strength is a proven predictor of long-term outcome of neuromuscular disease (NMD), including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and spinal muscular atrophy. Maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP), a sensitive measure of respiratory muscle strength, one of several useful tests of respiratory muscle strength, is gaining interest as a therapeutic clinical trial endpoint for NMD. In this comprehensive review we investigate the use of MIP as a measure of respiratory muscle strength in clinical trials of therapeutics targeting respiratory muscle, examine the correlation of MIP with survival, quality of life, and other measures of pulmonary function, and outline the role of MIP as a clinically significantly meaningful outcome measure. Our analysis supports the utility of MIP for the early evaluation of respiratory muscle strength, especially of the diaphragm, in patients with NMD and as a surrogate endpoint in clinical trials of therapies for NMD.

Indexed as

Maximal Respiratory PressuresHumansNeuromuscular DiseasesRespiratory Function TestsRespiratory InsufficiencySpirometryEndpointMaximum inspiratory pressureNeuromuscular diseasePulmonary function testingRespiratory failureSpirometrySurvival

Identifiers

PMID28302142
PMCPMC5353799

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.