MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112625969 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003101

Inspiratory muscle training protocol for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (IMTCO study): a multicentre randomised controlled trial

2013· article· en· W2112625969 on OpenAlexaff
Noppawan Charususin, Rik Gosselink, Marc Decramer, Alison McConnell, Didier Saey, François Maltais, Eric Derom, Stéfanie Vermeersch, Hanneke van Helvoort, Yvonne F. Heijdra, Mariska P M Klaassen, R Glöckl, Klaus Kenn, Daniël Langer

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCOPDPhysical therapyPulmonary rehabilitationQuality of life (healthcare)Randomized controlled trialPlaceboWeaknessClinical trialInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Inspiratory muscle training (IMT) has been applied during pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, it remains unclear if the addition of IMT to a general exercise training programme leads to additional clinically relevant improvements in patients with COPD. In this study, we will investigate whether the addition of IMT to a general exercise training programme improves 6 min walking distance, health-related quality of life, daily physical activity and inspiratory muscle function in patients with COPD with inspiratory muscle weakness. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Patients with COPD (n=170) with inspiratory muscle weakness (Pi,max <60 cm H2O or <50%pred) will be recruited to a multicentre randomised placebo controlled trial of IMT and allocated into one of the two groups. Patients in both groups will follow a 3 month general exercise training programme, in combination with home-based IMT. IMT will be performed with a recently developed device (POWERbreathe KH1). This device applies an inspiratory load that is provided by an electronically controlled valve (variable flow resistive load). The intervention group (n=85) will undertake an IMT programme at a high intensity (≥50% of their Pi,max), whereas the placebo group (n=85) will undertake IMT at a low training intensity (≤10% of Pi,max). Total daily IMT time for both groups will be 21 min (6 cycles of 30 breaths). Improvement in the 6 min walking distance will be the primary outcome. Inspiratory muscle function, health-related quality of life and daily physical activity will be assessed as secondary outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been obtained from relevant centre committees and the study has been registered in a publicly accessible clinical trial database. The results will be easily interpretable and should immediately be communicated to healthcare providers, patients and the general public. RESULTS: This can be incorporated into evidence-based treatment recommendations for clinical practice. CLINICALTRIALSGOV: NCT01397396.

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 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), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.325
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations104
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207