A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of Lung Volume Recruitment in Adults with Neuromuscular Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rationale Clinical care guidelines advise that lung volume recruitment (LVR) be performed routinely by people with neuromuscular disease (NMD) to maintain lung and chest wall flexibility and slow lung function decline. However, the evidence base is limited, and no randomized controlled trials of regular LVR in adults have been published. Objectives To evaluate the effect of regular LVR on respiratory function and quality of life in adults with NMD. Methods A randomized controlled trial with assessor blinding was conducted between September 2015 and May 2019. People (>14 years old) with NMD and vital capacity <80% predicted were eligible, stratified by disease subgroup (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease or other NMDs), and randomized to 3 months of twice-daily LVR or breathing exercises. The primary outcome was change in maximum insufflation capacity (MIC) from baseline to 3 months, analyzed using a linear mixed model approach. Results Seventy-six participants (47% woman; median age, 57 [31–68] years; mean baseline vital capacity, 40 ± 18% predicted) were randomized (LVR, n = 37). Seventy-three participants completed the study. There was a statistically significant difference in MIC between groups (linear model interaction effect P = 0.002, observed mean difference, 0.19 [0.00–0.39] L). MIC increased by 0.13 (0.01–0.25) L in the LVR group, predominantly within the first month. No interaction or treatment effects were observed in secondary outcomes of lung volumes, respiratory system compliance, and quality of life. No adverse events were reported. Conclusions Regular LVR increased MIC in a sample of LVR-naive participants with NMD. We found no direct evidence that regular LVR modifies respiratory mechanics or slows the rate of lung volume decline. The implications of increasing MIC are unclear, and the change in MIC may represent practice. Prospective long-term clinical cohorts with comprehensive follow-up, objective LVR use, and clinically meaningful outcome data are needed. Clinical trial registered with anzctr.org.au (ACTRN12615000565549).
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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".