Inspiratory Muscle Training Compared With Other Rehabilitation Interventions in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".