SynthesisF1000Research2026
Inspiratory Muscle Training plus Pulmonary Rehabilitation versus Rehabilitation alone in COPD A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in F1000Research, 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: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is an established intervention for COPD, but the added value of inspiratory muscle training (IMT) within PR remains uncertain. This systematic review examined whether IMT plus PR provides benefits beyond PR alone in adults with moderate to severe COPD. Methods: PubMed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from inception to January 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IMT+PR with PR alone in adults with moderate to severe COPD were included. Primary outcomes were inspiratory muscle strength (PImax), dyspnea, health related quality of life (HRQoL), exercise capacity [six minute walk test (6MWT)], and pulmonary function tests (PFTs). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. Results: Nine RCTs (n=295) met the inclusion criteria. IMT+PR improved PImax in 6/9 studies, with gains of 5.2 to 22.9 cmH Conclusion: Adding IMT to PR meaningfully improves PImax and HRQoL in moderate to severe COPD, with frequent but less consistent benefits for dyspnea and 6MWT performance and minimal effect on spirometry. IMT may be most appropriate for patients with inspiratory muscle weakness (PImax <60 cmH
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.