Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29797578›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2018

Respiratory muscle training for cystic fibrosis.

Nathan Hilton, Arturo Solis-Moya

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Respiratory muscle training for cystic fibrosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Standard reference and percentiles of maximum respiratory pressures values of healthy children aged 7-10 years.Revista paulista de pediatria : orgao oficial da Sociedade de Pediatria de Sao Paulo · 2022
    Article
  6. Long-Term Combined Training in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: A Case Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Nathan HiltonLiverpool Heart and Chest Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Thomas Drive, Liverpool, UK, L14 3PE.
Arturo Solis-Moya
Hospital Nacional de Niños · CRUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCystic fibrosis is the most common autosomal recessive disease in white populations, and causes respiratory dysfunction in the majority of individuals. Numerous types of respiratory muscle training to improve respiratory function and health-related quality of life in people with cystic fibrosis have been reported in the literature. Hence a systematic review of the literature is needed to establish the effectiveness of respiratory muscle training (either inspiratory or expiratory muscle training) on clinical outcomes in cystic fibrosis. This is an update of a previously published review.

objectivesTo determine the effectiveness of respiratory muscle training on clinical outcomes in people with cystic fibrosis. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials register comprising of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.Date of most recent search: 17 April 2018.A hand search of the Journal of Cystic Fibrosis and Pediatric Pulmonology was performed, along with an electronic search of online trial databases up until 07 May 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled studies comparing respiratory muscle training with a control group in people with cystic fibrosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently selected articles for inclusion, evaluated the methodological quality of the studies, and extracted data. Additional information was sought from trial authors where necessary. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE system MAIN

resultsAuthors identified 19 studies, of which nine studies with 202 participants met the review's inclusion criteria. There was wide variation in the methodological and written quality of the included studies. Four of the nine included studies were published as abstracts only and lacking concise details, thus limiting the information available. Seven studies were parallel studies and two of a cross-over design. Respiratory muscle training interventions varied dramatically, with frequency, intensity and duration ranging from thrice weekly to twice daily, 20% to 80% of maximal effort, and 10 to 30 minutes, respectively. Participant numbers ranged from 11 to 39 participants in the included studies; five studies were in adults only and four in a combination of children and adults.No significant improvement was reported in the primary outcome of pulmonary function (forced expiratory volume in one second and forced vital capacity) (very low-quality evidence). Although no change was reported in exercise capacity as assessed by the maximum rate of oxygen use, a 10% improvement in exercise duration was found when working at 60% of maximal effort in one study (n = 20) (very low-quality evidence). In a further study (n = 18), when working at 80% of maximal effort, health-related quality of life improved in the mastery and emotion domains (very low-quality evidence). With regards to the review's secondary outcomes, one study (n = 11) found a significant change in intramural pressure, functional residual capacity and maximal inspiratory pressure following training (low-quality evidence). A further study (n = 22) reported that respiratory muscle endurance was significantly longer in the training group (P < 0.01). No studies reported on any other secondary outcomes. Meta-analyses could not be performed due to a lack of consistency and insufficient detail in reported outcome measures. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is insufficient evidence to suggest whether this intervention is beneficial or not. Healthcare practitioners should consider the use of respiratory muscle training on a case-by-case basis. Further research of reputable methodological quality is needed to determine the effectiveness of respiratory muscle training in people with cystic fibrosis. Researchers should consider the following clinical outcomes in future studies; respiratory muscle function, pulmonary function, exercise capacity, hospital admissions, and health-related quality of life. Sensory-perceptual changes, such as respiratory effort sensation (e.g. rating of perceived breathlessness) and peripheral effort sensation (e.g. rating of perceived exertion) may also help to elucidate mechanisms underpinning the effectiveness of respiratory muscle training.

Indexed as

Breathing ExercisesAdultChildCystic FibrosisHumansInhalationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRespiratory Muscles

Identifiers

PMID29797578
PMCPMC6494574
OpenAlexW2947924046

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.