↓ Skip to main content

Inspiratory muscle training to enhance recovery from mechanical ventilation: a randomised trial

Overview of attention for article published in Thorax, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
90 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
91 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
428 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Inspiratory muscle training to enhance recovery from mechanical ventilation: a randomised trial
Published in
Thorax, June 2016
DOI 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2016-208279
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bernie M Bissett, I Anne Leditschke, Teresa Neeman, Robert Boots, Jennifer Paratz

Abstract

In patients who have been mechanically ventilated, inspiratory muscles remain weak and fatigable following ventilatory weaning, which may contribute to dyspnoea and limited functional recovery. Inspiratory muscle training may improve inspiratory muscle strength and endurance following weaning, potentially improving dyspnoea and quality of life in this patient group. We conducted a randomised trial with assessor-blinding and intention-to-treat analysis. Following 48 hours of successful weaning, 70 participants (mechanically ventilated ≥7 days) were randomised to receive inspiratory muscle training once daily 5 days/week for 2 weeks in addition to usual care, or usual care (control). Primary endpoints were inspiratory muscle strength and fatigue resistance index (FRI) 2 weeks following enrolment. Secondary endpoints included dyspnoea, physical function and quality of life, post-intensive care length of stay and in-hospital mortality. 34 participants were randomly allocated to the training group and 36 to control. The training group demonstrated greater improvements in inspiratory strength (training: 17%, control: 6%, mean difference: 11%, p=0.02). There were no statistically significant differences in FRI (0.03 vs 0.02, p=0.81), physical function (0.25 vs 0.25, p=0.97) or dyspnoea (-0.5 vs 0.2, p=0.22). Improvement in quality of life was greater in the training group (14% vs 2%, mean difference 12%, p=0.03). In-hospital mortality was higher in the training group (4 vs 0, 12% vs 0%, p=0.051). Inspiratory muscle training following successful weaning increases inspiratory muscle strength and quality of life, but we cannot confidently rule out an associated increased risk of in-hospital mortality. ACTRN12610001089022, results.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 90 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 428 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 426 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 84 20%
Student > Bachelor 54 13%
Researcher 39 9%
Student > Postgraduate 23 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 5%
Other 74 17%
Unknown 134 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 104 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 90 21%
Sports and Recreations 15 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 2%
Neuroscience 7 2%
Other 40 9%
Unknown 162 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 54. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 December 2021.
All research outputs
#780,841
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Thorax
#265
of 5,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,887
of 353,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Thorax
#3
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,743 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,815 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.