ArticleTrials2025
Effects of high-intensity interval inspiratory muscle training on diaphragm function and quality of life among tracheostomized patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Trials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatients who undergo tracheostomy often experience respiratory muscle dysfunction and reduced airway clearance capacity, leading to reduced quality of life. While inspiratory muscle training (IMT) is effective at improving respiratory outcomes among mechanically ventilated patients, evidence about its clinical utility and safety, especially in tracheostomized populations, is limited. Moreover, the optimal IMT protocol for this patient cohort remains undefined. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of high-intensity interval inspiratory muscle training (HI-IMT) on diaphragmatic function, airway clearance capacity, anxiety levels, decannulation rates, quality of life, and safety outcomes among tracheostomy patients.
methodsThis is a single-center, single-blind, randomized controlled trial. Seventy tracheostomized patients (aged 40-70 years, with tracheostomy for 1-3 months) will be randomly assigned to either the HI-IMT group or the control group. The HI-IMT group will receive IMT at 50% of the maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP), 30 breaths/day, 5 days/week for 2 weeks. The control group will receive sham training, which will involve performing the same breathing cycles without any applied resistance. Both groups will receive standard care, including pharmacological therapy, rehabilitative nursing, and basic rehabilitation exercises. Diaphragmatic function, airway clearance ability, anxiety levels, and quality of life will be assessed using the MIP% predicted (primary outcome) and peak inspiratory flow (PIF), the Semi-Quantitative Cough Strength Score (SCSS), the standardized Zung Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), and the Tracheostomy-Specific Quality of Life (TQOL) scale. Additionally, decannulation rates and adverse events will be systematically recorded throughout the study period. Data will be analyzed using parametric or non-parametric tests for unadjusted between-group comparisons. All analyses will adhere to the intention-to-treat principle, with a p-value < 0.05 set for statistical significance. DISCUSSION: This study is expected to provide valuable evidence about the efficacy and safety of HI-IMT in improving diaphragmatic function and overall outcomes among tracheostomized patients. These findings may contribute to the development of standardized respiratory rehabilitation protocols tailored to this patient population.
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial, ChiCTR2500099091. Registered on 18 March 2025. https://www.chictr.org.cn/bin/project/edit?pid=265948 .
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.