SynthesisPloS one2024
Effect of inspiratory muscle training in esophageal cancer patients receiving esophagectomy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association of Preoperative Inspiratory Muscle Weakness and Respiratory Sarcopenia with Postoperative Pneumonia Following Esophagectomy: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Robot-assisted versus thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: long-term oncological and functional outcomes.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Article
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
purposeTo identify the clinical effect of inspiratory muscle training (IMT) among esophageal cancer patients undergoing esophagectomy based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
methodsSeveral databases were searched for relevant RCTs up to August 23, 2023. Primary outcomes were respiratory muscle function, including the maximum inspiratory pressure (MIP) and maximum expiratory pressure (MEP), and pulmonary function, including the forced expiratory volume in one second % (FEV1%), forced vital capacity% (FVC%), maximal ventilator volume (MVV), FEV1/FVC% and FVC. The secondary outcomes were exercise performance, including the six-minute walk distance test (6MWT) and Borg index; mental function and quality of life, as evaluated by the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS) and Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) score; and postoperative complications. All the statistical analyses were performed with REVMAN 5.3 software.
resultsEight RCTs were included in this meta-analysis, with 368 patients receiving IMT and 371 control subjects. The pooled results demonstrated that IMT could significantly enhance respiratory muscle function (MIP: MD = 7.14 cmH2O, P = 0.006; MEP: MD = 8.15 cmH2O, P<0.001) and pulmonary function (FEV1%: MD = 6.15%, P<0.001; FVC%: MD = 4.65%, P<0.001; MVV: MD = 8.66 L, P<0.001; FEV1/FVC%: MD = 5.27%, P = 0.03; FVC: MD = 0.50 L, P<0.001). Furthermore, IMT improved exercise performance (6MWT: MD = 66.99 m, P = 0.02; Borg index: MD = -1.09, P<0.001), mental function and quality of life (HADS anxiety score: MD = -2.26, P<0.001; HADS depression score: MD = -1.34, P<0.001; NHP total score: MD = -48.76, P<0.001). However, IMT did not significantly decrease the incidence of postoperative complications.
conclusionIMT improves clinical outcomes, such as respiratory muscle function and pulmonary function, in esophageal cancer patients receiving esophagectomy and has potential for broad applications in the clinic.
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.