Inspiratory Muscle Training Compared with Other Rehabilitation Interventions in Adults with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the effect of inspiratory muscle training (IMT) (alone or combined with exercise and/or pulmonary rehabilitation) compared to other rehabilitation interventions such as: exercise, education, other breathing techniques or exercise and/or pulmonary rehabilitation among adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A systematic review of the literature on IMT and COPD was conducted according to the Cochrane Collaboration protocol. Inclusion criteria for the review included randomized controlled trials, published in English, comparing IMT or combined IMT and exercise/pulmonary rehabilitation with other rehabilitation interventions such as general exercise, education, other breathing techniques or exercise/pulmonary rehabilitation among adults with COPD. 274 articles were retrieved, and 16 met the inclusion criteria. Seven meta-analyses were performed that compared targeted or threshold IMT to exercise (n = 3) or to education (n = 4). Results showed significant improvements in inspiratory muscle strength and endurance, and in the dyspnea scale on a quality of life measure, for participants in the IMT versus education group. In other instances where meta-analyses could not be performed, a qualitative review was performed. IMT results in improved inspiratory muscle strength and endurance compared to education. Further trials are required to investigate the effect of IMT (or combined IMT) compared to other rehabilitation inventions for outcomes such as dyspnea, exercise tolerance, and quality of life.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".