SynthesisThe journal of spinal cord medicine2025
Respiratory muscle training in people with cervical spinal cord injury - A systematic review.
Synthesis in The journal of spinal cord medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Best-evidence summary of pulmonary rehabilitation strategies for adult patients with cervical spinal cord injury: a systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
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
introductionSpinal cord injury is a physiological disruption often caused by trauma, leading to severe physical and psychological effects, including irreversible impairment and disability. Cervical injuries, particularly between C1 and C8, are the most severe, potentially causing diaphragm paralysis and requiring mechanical ventilation. Reduced respiratory muscle strength not only affects respiratory function but also significantly impacts voice, speech, and communication, which are crucial for quality of life.
objectiveConduct a systematic review of the literature on respiratory muscle training protocols in individuals with cervical spinal cord injury and evaluate the methodological quality of scientific publications.
methodsStudies were searched by two independent researchers in the Regional Portal of the Virtual Health Library, EMBASE, SCOPUS and PubMed databases, using the descriptors: "respiratory muscle strength", "breathing training", and "cervical spinal cord injury", with no restriction on the time of publication. Studies containing respiratory muscle strength measurements and respiratory muscle training in people with cervical SCI were included and those that associated other techniques with functional respiratory training, such as electrical stimulation and other complementary techniques were excluded. The studies had the methodological quality (internal and external validity) classified by the PEDro scale (Physiotherapy Evidence Database).
resultsNine studies were identified and considered valid based on the inclusion criteria. The protocols presented varied parameters. The session time ranged from 15 to 45 minutes, the number of sessions per day ranged from 1 to 2, the number of days per week ranged from 3 to 7, and the number of intervention weeks ranged from 4 to 10. Only three studies presented internal and external validity for respiratory muscle training programs.
conclusionThis review identified that respiratory muscle training is an effective intervention to improve respiratory function in people with cervical SCI. However, due to the poor methodological quality of the studies, the effect size of the treatment, as well as the ideal dose and intensity, requires further investigation to better determine its overall effectiveness.
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.