SynthesisBMC pulmonary medicine2026
Efficacy of inspiratory muscle training on weaning success in mechanically ventilated ICU patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2026. 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.
- Awake patients' experiences and coping needs during awake prone positioning in general wards: a patient-perspective qualitative study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInspiratory muscle training (IMT) has been proposed as a strategy to mitigate ventilator-induced diaphragmatic dysfunction in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. However, its comparative effectiveness across different training intensities and impact on weaning success remain uncertain.
objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of intima-media thickness (IMT) on weaning success, maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP), and rapid shallow breathing index (RSBI) in mechanically ventilated adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients.
methodsThis systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines and was prospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD420251026681). PubMed, Cochrane Library, and PEDro were searched through July 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including ICU adults receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for ≥ 48 h. The primary outcome measure was successful weaning. The secondary outcomes were MIP and RSBI. The Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2.0. A frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted using standardized mean differences (SMD) and odds ratios (OR).
resultsEighteen RCTs (n = 1137) were included. Network meta-analysis demonstrated that high-intensity IMT (HI-IMT) and HI-IMT combined with proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation showed significant improvements in MIP compared to controls. No significant differences were observed between the active interventions for RSBI. For weaning success, the HI-IMT group showed a higher probability of successful weaning than the control group (odds ratio [OR] 0.32, 95% CI 0.14–0.75). Heterogeneity was substantial for continuous outcomes (I² >85%) and negligible for weaning success (I²=0%).
conclusionsIMT improves inspiratory muscle strength in mechanically ventilated ICU patients, particularly when delivered at higher intensities. Although high-intensity IMT was associated with improved weaning success in the network analysis, the overall clinical impact should be interpreted cautiously, given the heterogeneity and indirect nature of some comparisons. Further adequately powered trials with standardized protocols are warranted.
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.