SynthesisEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2025
Inspiratory muscle training for chronic critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Diaphragm stimulation in critically ill patients: what do we know, and what do we still need to learn?Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically review and analyze studies investigating the efficacy and safety of inspiratory muscle training in adult chronic critically ill patients.
methodsThe MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, LILACS, Clinical Trials Registry, and World Health Organization databases were queried on November 24, 2022 and January 22, 2025. The review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. RevMan V5.4 was used to analyze mean differences or standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) for continuous variables and risk ratios with 95%CIs for dichotomous outcomes. The primary outcomes were inspiratory muscle strength, duration of mechanical ventilation, and severe adverse events; the secondary outcomes were hospital and intensive care unit mortality, intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay, pulmonary function, non-serious adverse events, respiratory muscle mass, and functional status.
resultsSeven studies (n=390 participants) were included in the analysis. There was a significant increase in inspiratory muscle strength with inspiratory muscle training versus usual care (mean difference, -8.37; 95%CI= -15.21 to -1.52), although the certainty of evidence was very low; when compared with sham interventions, there was no significant difference (mean difference, -4.26; 95%CI= -14.05 to 5.53), also with very low certainty of evidence. The results for pulmonary function, duration of mechanical ventilation, and mortality were imprecise, with very low certainty of evidence. The available evidence also indicates the potential safety benefit of inspiratory muscle training, although the certainty of evidence remains very low. Conclusion: We identified that inspiratory muscle training may improve inspiratory muscle strength, with little to no difference on duration of mechanical ventilation, pulmonary function and severe and non-serious adverse events, when compared to sham inspiratory muscle training and usual care. However, the certainty of the evidence is very low. Evidence regarding the impact of inspiratory muscle training on intensive care unit mortality and length of stay is uncertain. Prospero database registration ID CRD42022370750.
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.