ArticleNeurology international2019
Rehabilitation management of Pompe disease, from childhood trough adulthood: A systematic review of the literature.
Article in Neurology international, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Austrian Pompe Outcome Consensus (APOC): a national Delphi study.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2026Article
- A Comprehensive Approach to Rehabilitation Interventions in Patients with Angelman Syndrome: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Neurology international · 2021Review
- Recommendations for Infantile-Onset and Late-Onset Pompe Disease: An Iranian Consensus.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Review
- Supervised Physical Therapy and Polymyositis/Dermatomyositis-A Systematic Review of the Literature.Neurology international · 2020Review
- Evidence-Based Practice in Rehabilitation of Myasthenia Gravis. A Systematic Review of the Literature.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2020Review
- Evidence-Based Physical Therapy for Individuals with Rett Syndrome: A Systematic Review.Brain sciences · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pompe disease (PD) is a rare neuromuscular disorder caused by a deficiency of the enzyme acid alpha-glucosidase. There are three forms of PD depending on the age at onset and clinical severity. PD causes involvement of different organ systems, such as the heart, musculoskeletal system, and respiratory system. As of today, enzyme replacement therapy represents the main therapeutic tool for PD. Rehabilitation is an integral part of a multidisciplinary approach to this pathology. The goal of the present review is to find scientific evidence for the rehabilitative approach to PD, with respect to both the infantile- and adult-onset forms. A systematic literature review was made using the following databases: Pubmed, Pedro, Cochrane Library, EDS Base Index, Trip, and Cinhal. Randomized controlled trials or cohort studies with a sample population of at least six subjects were retrieved. The PICO method was used to formulate the clinical query. The search resulted in 1665 articles. Of these, four cohort studies were subjected to the final phase of the review. Three studies regarded inspiratory muscle training with a threshold, while the fourth study analyzed the effectiveness of therapeutic, aerobic, and reinforcement exercises. Inspiratory muscle training with a threshold increases the pressures generated during inhalation. Aerobic exercise is capable of increasing patients' muscular endurance and performance. To date, however, rehabilitative treatment for patients with PD has no validation in evidencebased medicine. Further studies, possibly with a larger sample size and higher quality are necessary to confirm the effectiveness of rehabilitation in patients with PD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.