SynthesisJournal of neurology2026
Effects of respiratory muscle training on respiratory function in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of neurology, 2026. 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.
- Phrenic nerve amplitude as an effort-independent prognostic biomarker of respiratory failure in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.Journal of neurology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRespiratory decline is prognostically important in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), but the efficacy of respiratory muscle training (RMT) remains uncertain. We synthesized randomized evidence on respiratory and related outcomes.
methodsWe searched databases, specialized registers, and trial registries through June 19, 2025, for randomized RMT trials in ALS. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool. Random-effects meta-analyses reported standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and certainty was rated with GRADE.
resultsSix studies were included; five concurrently randomized trials contributed quantitative data, whereas Pinto 2013 was retained for qualitative context. RMT improved maximal expiratory pressure (MEP; SMD 0.387, 95% CI 0.192-0.581; P = 0.008) and showed small favorable effects on maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP; SMD 0.156, 95% CI 0.089-0.224; P = 0.005), sniff nasal inspiratory pressure (SNIP; SMD 0.216, 95% CI 0.039-0.392; P = 0.034), peak expiratory flow (PEF; SMD 0.205, 95% CI 0.088-0.323; P = 0.017), and ALSFRS-R (SMD 0.214, 95% CI 0.039-0.388; P = 0.030). Forced vital capacity showed a borderline favorable trend (SMD 0.129, 95% CI - 0.003 to 0.262; P = 0.053). Low heterogeneity estimates were imprecise because most endpoints included only three to four small studies. Certainty was moderate for MIP, low for MEP, FVC, and PEF, and very low for SNIP and ALSFRS-R. Exploratory analyses identified no reliable effect modifiers.
conclusionsRMT was associated with small, directionally consistent improvements mainly in pressure- and flow-based outcomes, whereas effects on FVC and longer-term clinical outcomes remain uncertain. RMT may be considered an individualized adjunct to ALS respiratory care, not a disease-modifying therapy. Larger, longer, standardized trials with patient-important endpoints are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42455190What 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.