ReviewCureus2025
Analysis of Respiratory Muscle Strength Training in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) Patients: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Respiratory muscle weakness is a significant contributor to morbidity and mortality in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) patients. Respiratory muscle strength training (RMST) has emerged as a potential therapeutic approach to mitigate respiratory muscle weakness in ALS. Still, its efficacy and safety remain unclear due to conflicting evidence and methodological heterogeneity in existing studies. A systematic review was conducted across three databases (PubMed (United States National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA), Embase (Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands), and Cochrane Library (Cochrane, Alberta, Canada)) following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to assess the effectiveness of RMST in ALS patients. Eligible studies included comparative studies for RMST, focusing on outcomes such as maximum inspiratory pressure (MIP), maximum expiratory pressure (MEP), forced vital capacity (FVC), and ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS-R). Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. This study included six studies, including 183 patients with a mean age of 58.0 years (49.6 to 63.2) and a mean follow-up time of 21.2 weeks (eight to 52). The average mean difference for ALSFRS-R (three studies), MIP (three studies), MEP (three studies), and FVC (two studies) were 2.062 (0.04 to 5.3), 2.285 (-8.145 to 10.8), 19.435 (10.86 to 21.7), and 7.23 (3.6 to 10.86), respectively. Complications related to RMST were poorly reported across studies. Secondary outcomes, such as depression scores, blood oxygen levels, and heart rate variability, showed promising trends but lacked consistency. Despite positive findings on respiratory muscle strength, RMST's efficacy in ALS management remains inconclusive. Challenges include methodological heterogeneity, limited sample sizes, and inadequate reporting of complications. Future research should focus on standardized protocols, larger sample sizes, longer follow-ups, and comprehensive assessment of adverse effects to clarify the role of RMST in ALS treatment.
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.