SynthesisBrazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery2024
Efficacy of Respiratory Muscle Training in the Immediate Postoperative Period of Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Breathing Pattern Dysfunction and Physical Activity of Patients Following a Median Sternotomy After Hospital Discharge: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Cardiac Rehabilitation After Mitral Valve Intervention: Tailored Assessment, Management, and Exercise Training.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- The Effect of a Pulmonary Care Bundle Implemented With Cardiac Surgery Patients on Recovery.Nursing in critical care · 2025Article
- Benefits from Implementing Low- to High-Intensity Inspiratory Muscle Training in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of respiratory muscle training during the immediate postoperative period of cardiac surgery on respiratory muscle strength, pulmonary function, functional capacity, and length of hospital stay.
methodsThis is a systematic review and meta-analysis. A comprehensive search on PubMed®, Excerpta Medica Database (or Embase), Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (or CINAHL), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (or LILACS), Scientific Electronic Library Online (or SciELO), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (or PEDro), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases was performed. A combination of free-text words and indexed terms referring to cardiac surgery, coronary artery bypass grafting, respiratory muscle training, and clinical trials was used. A total of 792 studies were identified; after careful selection, six studies were evaluated.
resultsThe studies found significant improvement after inspiratory muscle training (IMT) (n = 165, 95% confidence interval [CI] 9.68, 21.99) and expiratory muscle training (EMT) (n = 135, 95% CI 8.59, 27.07) of maximal inspiratory pressure and maximal expiratory pressure, respectively. Also, IMT increased significantly (95% CI 19.59, 349.82, n = 85) the tidal volume. However, no differences were found in the peak expiratory flow, functional capacity, and length of hospital stay after EMT and IMT.
conclusionIMT and EMT demonstrated efficacy in improving respiratory muscle strength during the immediate postoperative period of cardiac surgery. There was no evidence indicating the efficacy of IMT for pulmonary function and length of hospital stay and the efficacy of EMT for functional capacity.
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.