ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026
Clinical outcomes of diaphragm pacing in facilitating weaning from mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: While early rehabilitation is widely implemented in intensive care units (ICUs) for patients requiring mechanical ventilation (MV), the clinical effectiveness of external diaphragm pacing (EDP) in this context remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of EDP on clinical outcomes in patients receiving MV and to provide evidence to inform future research. Methods: A comprehensive search of nine electronic databases was conducted from inception to January 2026, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing EDP with control in MV patients. Data were analyzed using Review Manager version 5.4. The risk of bias in RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2.0). The certainty of the evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. This study followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: Fourteen RCTs involving 862 patients (430 in EDP group, 432 controls) were included. Meta-analysis revealed that EDP significantly reduced the duration of MV [mean difference (MD) =-1.51 days, 95% confidence interval (CI): -2.41 to -0.61, P=0.02], increased the rate of successful weaning [odds ratio (OR) =3.45, 95% CI: 2.14-5.56, P<0.001], and shortened ICU length of stay (MD =-2.88 days, 95% CI: -3.37 to -2.40, P<0.001). However, no significant improvement in survival was observed (OR =1.11, 95% CI: 0.69-1.79, P=0.66). Subgroup analyses indicated the greatest reduction in MV duration for patients with weaning difficulty, and heterogeneity in ICU stay was partially explained by disease type and study quality. Conclusions: EDP was associated with reduced MV duration, higher weaning success, and shorter ICU stay, but not with improved survival, in adult patients receiving MV. These findings support EDP as a beneficial adjunctive rehabilitation strategy, particularly for patients experiencing weaning difficulty. Further large-scale RCTs are warranted to confirm its effects on mortality and to optimize treatment protocols.
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.