SynthesisCritical care (London, England)2025
Effects of different respiratory training methods on respiratory function in patients with spinal cord injury: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Critical care (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 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
- Effect of a Comprehensive Mobile-Based Respiratory Training Program on Respiratory Function in Survivors of Acute Stroke: Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Trial
- The effectiveness of concurrent training in lung cancer survivors: a systematic review.Translational lung cancer research · 2026Review
- Comparison of the Efficacy of Different Traditional Chinese Exercises in the Treatment of Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of pain research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the efficacy of various respiratory training methods in improving respiratory function in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI).
methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) on respiratory training interventions for SCI patients were searched in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library through September 1, 2024. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane tool. Review Manager 5.4 was used to conduct a systematic review using Bayesian NMA methods. The Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) framework was employed to evaluate the quality of evidence. The primary outcomes were maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP), forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), and forced vital capacity (FVC).
resultsSeventeen RCTs (n = 625) were included, evaluating eight respiratory training interventions and one control intervention. NMA revealed that for improving MIP, transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation plus resistance respiratory muscle training (tSCS_RRMT) (SUCRA 86.32%) showed the greatest efficacy, followed by resistance respiratory muscle training (RRMT) (SUCRA 84.09%). For FEV1, repetitive functional magnetic stimulation combined with abdominal neuromuscular electrical stimulation and routine breathing training (rFMS_NMES_RBT) (SUCRA 89.41%) demonstrated superior efficacy, followed by incentive spirometry combined with the abdominal drawing-in maneuver (IS_ADIM) (SUCRA 70.05%). For FVC, IS_ADIM (SUCRA 76.25%) was most effective, followed by routine breathing training (RBT) (SUCRA 65.40%). League table results indicated that RRMT (mean difference (MD) 13.25, 95% credible intervals (CrI) [7.51, 18.92]) significantly improved MIP compared to the control intervention; IS_ADIM (MD 0.58, 95% CrI [0.31, 0.85]) and RBT (MD 0.49, 95% CrI [0.29, 0.69]) enhanced FVC compared to the control intervention.
conclusiontSCS_RRMT appears to be the most effective for improving MIP, rFMS_NMES_RBT for enhancing FEV1, and IS_ADIM for improving FVC based on SUCRA rankings. Due to irreconcilable heterogeneity, indirectness, imprecision, and incoherence, the reliability of the evidence is limited.
trial registrationThis network meta-analysis adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024592511).
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.