Trial reportBMC pulmonary medicine2025
The impact of respiratory training on diaphragmatic function in elderly COPD patients with sarcopenia.
Trial report in BMC pulmonary medicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) combined with sarcopenia is a common chronic disease combination in elderly patients, significantly affecting diaphragmatic function, pulmonary function, quality of life, and exercise capacity. This study aims to evaluate the effects of respiratory training on diaphragmatic function and multidimensional health indicators in elderly COPD patients with sarcopenia.
methodsThis single-center, randomized controlled, prospective study included 80 elderly COPD patients with sarcopenia, who were randomly assigned to the respiratory training group (40 patients) and the conventional treatment group (40 patients) in a 1:1 ratio. The respiratory training group underwent 12 weeks of diaphragmatic breathing training and expiratory resistance training, while the conventional treatment group received standard COPD care only. The primary outcomes included diaphragmatic function (diaphragmatic excursion and diaphragmatic thickness change rate), pulmonary function (FEV1, FEV1/FVC), quality of life (SGRQ total score), exercise capacity (6MWT), and clinical scores (mMRC, BODE index). Paired t-tests, independent t-tests, and multivariable linear regression analyses were used to assess intervention effects and independent influencing factors.
resultsBaseline characteristics were well-matched between the two groups, with no significant differences observed (P > 0.05). After 12 weeks, the respiratory training group showed significant improvements in diaphragmatic function: diaphragmatic excursion increased from 1.8 ± 0.3 cm to 3.2 ± 0.4 cm, and diaphragmatic thickness change rate increased from 20.0 ± 3.5% to 40.2 ± 4.2% (both P < 0.001), significantly outperforming the conventional treatment group (intergroup comparison P < 0.001). Improvements in pulmonary function, quality of life, and exercise capacity were also significantly greater in the respiratory training group (FEV1: P < 0.001; FEV1/FVC: P < 0.001; SGRQ total score: P < 0.001; 6MWT: P < 0.001). Multivariable linear regression analysis identified respiratory training as the only significant predictor of improved diaphragmatic function (P < 0.001).
conclusionsRespiratory training significantly improved diaphragmatic function, pulmonary function, quality of life, and exercise capacity in elderly COPD patients with sarcopenia, showing superior efficacy compared to conventional treatment. These findings highlight respiratory training as an effective intervention strategy, providing scientific evidence for the comprehensive management of elderly COPD patients with sarcopenia. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: ChiCTR2500098349 (Registration Date: 2025-3-6).
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.