ReviewThe open respiratory medicine journal2020
The Benefit of Non-invasive Ventilation in Motor Neuron Disease.
Review in The open respiratory medicine journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Delivering effective non-invasive ventilation in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis using intensive remote support (DENIM): protocol for an embedded process evaluation in a hybrid type 3 implementation-effectiveness trial.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- The Burden of Motor Neuron Diseases in the United States, 1990-2021: A Systematic Analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021.Muscle & nerve · 2025Article
- Expanded central role of the respiratory physiotherapists in the community setting.Irish journal of medical science · 2023Review
- Use of non-invasive ventilation in motor neuron disease - a retrospective cohort analysis.Chronic respiratory diseaseArticle
- The benefit of non-invasive ventilation in motor neuron disease. Response to letter CRD-22-0013.Chronic respiratory diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMotor Neuron Disease (MND) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder leading to respiratory muscle weakness with dyspnoea, morning headaches, orthopnoea, poor concentration, unrefreshing sleep, fatigue and daytime somnolence. Respiratory failure is the primary cause of death in those with MND.
methodsAlthough guidelines suggest the use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in MND, there lacks clear guidance as to when is the optimal time to initiate NIV and which markers of respiratory muscle decline are the best predictors of prognosis. There have been a number of studies that have found a significant survival advantage to the use of NIV in MND. Similarly, in quality-of-life questionnaires, those treated with NIV tend to perform better and maintain a better quality of life for longer. Furthermore, studies also suggest that improved compliance and greater tolerance of NIV confer a survival advantage. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) has traditionally been the main pulmonary function test to determine the respiratory function in those with MND; however, FVC may not be entirely reflective of early respiratory muscle dysfunction. Evidence suggests that sniff nasal inspiratory pressure and maximum mouth inspiratory pressure may be better indicators of early respiratory muscle decline. These measures have been shown to be easier to perform later in the disease, in patients with bulbar onset disease, and may indeed be better prognostic indicators.
conclusionDespite ongoing research, there remains a paucity of randomised controlled data in this area. This review aims to summarise the evidence to date on these topics.
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.