ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2026
Defining a diaphragm-focused and patient-acceptable inspiratory muscle training (IMT) load in difficult to wean, mechanically ventilated patients: a protocol for a prospective, mixed methods study.
Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07256821 (A Prospective, Mixed Methods, Observational Study to Define a Diaphragm-focussed and Patient-acceptable Inspiratory Muscle Training), which is not on this 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.
A Prospective, Mixed Methods, Observational Study to Define a Diaphragm-focussed and Patient-acceptable Inspiratory Muscle Training (IMT) Load in Difficult to Wean, Mechanically Ventilated Patients
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
introductionDiaphragm dysfunction is associated with failure to wean from mechanical ventilation. Inspiratory muscle training (IMT) may help improve outcomes for difficult-to-wean patients, yet the optimal approach remains unknown. High load IMT causes a training effect on the extra-diaphragmatic inspiratory muscles, but does not improve weaning success, questioning the utility of frequently cited high intensity IMT loads. Additionally, patients may find IMT unpleasant and distressing due to dyspnoea experienced during IMT. The aim of this study is to define a diaphragm-focused IMT load which is acceptable to patients.
methodsThis study is designed as a prospective, mixed methods study. Forty difficult to wean, tracheostomised patients on mechanical ventilation will perform IMT at 15, 30, 45 and 60% of their maximal inspiratory pressure (PImax) in a randomised order using a tapered flow resistive loading device (POWERBreathe KH2, POWERBreathe, UK). Electrical activity of the diaphragm will be measured using an oesophageal multipair catheter (NAVA, Getinge, Sweden); extra-diaphragmatic (parasternal, scalene and sternocleidomastoid) muscle activity will be measured using surface electromyography. Patient experience of each load will be explored by measuring perceived breathing difficulty and unpleasantness using 0-10 numeric rating scales, verbal or written communication techniques in line with the participants' communication ability, and/or bespoke communication boards co-designed with the study patient and public involvement (PPI) group. Quantitative and qualitative data will be integrated to inform a diaphragm-focused, patient-acceptable IMT load. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from Wales Research Ethics Committee 4 (Reference 25/WA/0242) on 30 October 2025. Results from this study will be presented at scientific meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT07256821.
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.