SynthesisBMC pulmonary medicine2025
Effects of pulmonary rehabilitation on respiratory function in mechanically ventilated patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Residual airways: the lingering legacy of severe respiratory syncytial virus bronchiolitis.ERJ open research · 2026Article
- Global trends and research hotspots in pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a bibliometric analysis (2011-2024).Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to explore the effects of different pulmonary rehabilitation on respiratory function in mechanically ventilated patients and to determine the optimal type of intervention.
methodA comprehensive search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Joanna Briggs Institute(JBI), and the Cochrane Library from their inception until September 16th, 2024. The search targeted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pulmonary rehabilitation or usual care, for improving respiratory function in mechanically ventilated patients. We performed a meta-analysis utilizing Endnote X9 and R 4.3.1.
resultsTwelve articles were included for systematic review and ten articles were analyzed in the meta-analysis.The primary outcomes such as Maximum inspiratory pressure(MIP)[n = 10 studies, sample size 216 (intervention) vs. 218 (control), MD = 7.45, 95% CI: 3.81 to 11.09], Maximum expiratory pressure(MEP)[n = 5 studies, sample size 115 (intervention) vs. 112 (control), MD = 13.98, 95% CI:7.41 to 20.54], Rapid shallow breathing index(RSBI)[n = 4 studies, sample size 96 (intervention) vs. 98 (control), MD = -33.85, 95% CI:-71.18 to 3.48] and Tidal volume(VT)[n = 4 studies, sample size 96 (intervention) vs. 98 (control), MD = 74.64, 95% CI:21.7 to 127.57] shows that MIP, MEP and VT significantly improved after the pulmonary rehabilitation.The random-effects models were employed because of the modest degree of heterogeneity present.
conclusionPulmonary rehabilitation showed mixed effects on significantly improved the MIP, MEP, VT and DT. Pulmonary rehabilitation by inspiratory muscle training could administer the best therapeutic effect, followed by neuromuscular electrical stimulation. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.