ReviewAnnals of thoracic medicine
Effects of respiratory muscle training on clinical outcomes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Annals of thoracic medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Is it time to focus on expiratory muscle training in children with asthma? A randomized controlled trial.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Trial
- Effects of combined inspiratory and expiratory muscle training in pediatric kidney transplant recipients: a randomized controlled study.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2026Article
- Response to "Letter to the Editor: The importance of quantifying training loads and applying exercise principles in respiratory muscle training studies".Canadian journal of respiratory therapy : CJRT = Revue canadienne de la therapie respiratoire : RCTR · 2025Article
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
The effectiveness and clinical significance of respiratory muscle training for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients remain controversial. Our aim is to systematically review and conduct a meta analysis on the impact of respiratory muscle training on the clinical outcomes of patients with COPD. We systematically searched electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase) for randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of respiratory muscle training on clinical outcomes in COPD patients. We utilized fixed or random effects models to assess the impact of respiratory muscle training on the 6 min walk test (6MWT), dyspnea, pulmonary function, respiratory muscle strength, and quality of life (QOL). Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria for this review, involving 1178 COPD patients, of whom 588 completed respiratory muscle training. Meta analysis results indicated that respiratory muscle training significantly improved 6MWT (mean difference [MD]: 17.99; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.73, 32.26), dyspnea (standardized MD [SMD]: -0.81; 95% CI: -1.28, -0.34), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1; MD: 0.09; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.17), forced vital capacity (FVC; MD: 0.13; 95% CI: 0.03, 0.23), maximum inspiratory pressure (MD: 14.43; 95% CI: 8.71, 20.14), maximal expiratory pressure (MD: 15.06; 95% CI: 5.69, 24.43), and QOL (SMD: -0.77; 95% CI: -1.43, -0.11). However, no significant effect of respiratory muscle training on FEV1 /FVC was found (MD: 1.22; 95% CI: -1.61, 4.06). Respiratory muscle training is a positive intervention for improving exercise tolerance, pulmonary function, respiratory muscle strength, and QOL in COPD patients. Further high quality studies are needed to validate the findings of this review.
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.