4.3 Review

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of respiratory muscle training on pulmonary function in tetraplegia

期刊

SPINAL CORD
卷 52, 期 3, 页码 175-180

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sc.2013.162

关键词

spinal cord injury; tetraplegia; respiratory function; respiratory muscle training; systematic review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study design: Systematic review Objectives: To determine the effect of respiratory muscle training (RMT) on pulmonary function in tetraplegia. Methods: A comprehensive search of the research literature included MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ISI Web of Science, PubMed, the relevant Cochrane and clinical trials registers and hand-searching the reference lists of appropriate papers. There was no language restriction. All randomised controlled trials that involved RMT vs control were considered for inclusion. Two reviewers independently selected articles for inclusion, evaluated the methodological quality and extracted data. Additional information was sought from the authors when necessary. Results: Eleven studies (212 participants) were included. A significant benefit of RMT was revealed for five outcomes: vital capacity (mean difference (95% confidence interval)) - 0.41(0.17-0.64) l, maximal inspiratory pressure - 10.66(3.59, 17.72) cmH(2)O, maximal expiratory pressure = 10.31(2.80-17.82) cmH(2)O, maximum voluntary ventilation = 17.51(5.20, 29.81) l min(-1) and inspiratory capacity = 0.35(0.05, 0.65) l. No effect was found for total lung capacity, peak expiratory flow rate, functional residual capacity, residual volume, expiratory reserve volume or forced expiratory volume in 1 second. Conclusion: RMT increases respiratory strength, function and endurance during the period of training. Further research is needed to determine optimum dosages and duration of effect. This article is based in part on a Cochrane review published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) 2013, DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008507.pub2. Cochrane reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to feedback, and the CDSR should be consulted for the most recent version of the review.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据