MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Inspiratory Muscle Training Compared With Other Rehabilitation Interventions in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

2008· review· en· W2044222765 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchLung Health FoundationCanadian Lung Association
KeywordsMedicineCOPDPulmonary rehabilitationPhysical therapyRehabilitationPsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialPulmonary diseaseMeta-analysisPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief PURPOSE To determine the effect of inspiratory muscle training (IMT) (alone or combined with exercise and/or pulmonary rehabilitation) and compare with other rehabilitation interventions among adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS We conducted a systematic review, using Cochrane Collaboration protocol. We included randomized controlled trials, published in English, comparing IMT or combined IMT and exercise/pulmonary rehabilitation with other rehabilitation interventions among adults with COPD. Abstracts were reviewed independently by 2 investigators to determine study eligibility up to December 2005. Data were abstracted and methodological quality of included studies was assessed. RESULTS A total of 156 additional articles were retrieved. Two new studies met the inclusion criteria and were included with 16 studies in the original review. Results highlight updated subgroup analyses comparing (1) IMT versus exercise and (2) combined IMT and exercise versus exercise alone. Fourteen meta-analyses were performed for outcomes of inspiratory muscle strength, exercise tolerance, and quality of life. Results showed significant improvements in maximum inspiratory pressure and maximum exercise tidal volume favoring combined IMT and exercise compared with exercise alone. CONCLUSIONS Performing a combination of IMT plus exercise may lead to significant improvements in inspiratory muscle strength and one outcome of exercise tolerance for individuals with COPD. Meta-analyses were performed to determine the effect of inspiratory muscle training (IMT) compared with other rehabilitation interventions among adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Results suggest that performing a combination of IMT plus exercise may lead to significant improvements in inspiratory muscle strength and exercise tolerance for individuals with COPD.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it