SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2025
Effectiveness of respiratory rehabilitation in cervicothoracic spinal cord injury: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 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.
- Association Between Upper Extremity Function and Independence in Activities of Daily Living in Individuals with Motor-Incomplete Tetraplegia: An Exploratory Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Respiratory dysfunction is a major contributor to morbidity and mortality in patients with cervicothoracic spinal cord injury (SCI). This dysfunction primarily arises from diaphragmatic paralysis, impaired neural control of respiratory muscles, and autonomic dysregulation, leading to reduced ventilatory capacity and compromised respiratory performance. Although various respiratory rehabilitation strategies are widely used, their comparative effectiveness remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate and rank non-pharmacological respiratory rehabilitation interventions for improving pulmonary function, respiratory muscle strength, and dyspnea in individuals with cervicothoracic SCI. Review methods: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Eight databases were searched from inception to July 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating non-pharmacological respiratory rehabilitation interventions in cervicothoracic SCI. Primary outcomes included forced vital capacity (FVC, L), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁, L), maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP, cmH₂O), and Borg dyspnea score. Network meta-analyses were performed using the gemtc and multinma packages in R. Results: Forty RCTs involving 1,878 participants were included. Liuzijue demonstrated the greatest improvement in FVC (MD = 0.97, 95% CrI 0.57-1.37), abdominal compression training showed the largest effect on FEV₁ (MD = 0.68, 95% CrI 0.36-1.00), progressive resistance breathing training achieved the highest gain in MIP (MD = 13.95, 95% CrI 9.08-18.82), and normocapnic hyperpnoea produced the greatest reduction in dyspnea severity (MD = -3.00, 95% CrI - 4.50 to -1.50). No significant inconsistency or publication bias was detected across the outcome networks. Conclusion: Distinct respiratory rehabilitation modalities confer domain-specific benefits in patients with cervicothoracic SCI. Liuzijue and abdominal compression training primarily improve ventilatory function, progressive resistance breathing training enhances inspiratory muscle strength, and normocapnic hyperpnoea effectively alleviates dyspnea. These findings support a multimodal, individualized rehabilitation approach tailored to specific respiratory deficits in clinical practice. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/search, identifier CRD42024554608.
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.