Is inspiratory muscle training effective for individuals with cervical spinal cord injury? A qualitative systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review to determine the effect of inspiratory muscle training (IMT) in adults with cervical spinal cord injury (CSCI). DESIGN: A systematic search of the literature on IMT and CSCI according to the Cochrane Collaboration protocol was performed. We searched electronic databases up to August 2003 including MEDLINE and CINAHL, searched reference lists from pertinent articles and books, made personal contact with authors, and hand searched targeted journals to identify potential studies for inclusion. STUDY SELECTION: Inclusion criteria for the review included randomized controlled trials published in English comparing IMT with another comparison group among adults with CSCI. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers abstracted relevant data from included studies. Methodological quality of the studies was assessed using criteria developed by Jadad et al. We also assessed whether the comparison groups were similar at baseline and whether an intention-to-treat analysis was performed. RESULTS: Forty articles were retrieved and three met the inclusion criteria. All studies used inspiratory resistance muscle trainers for at least 15 min, twice daily, five to seven days per week for six to eight weeks. Meta-analysis could not be performed due to differences in study design and outcomes. Only one study reported a positive effect of IMTcompared to control for measures of dyspnoea and pulmonary function. CONCLUSION: Literature on the effect of IMT among adults with CSCI is scarce and an overall effect could not be confirmed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".