SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Effects of high-intensity respiratory muscle training on respiratory muscle strength in individuals with Parkinson's disease: Protocol of a randomized clinical trial.

PLoS One · 2023-09-08

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0291051PMID: 37682839

Open accessClinical Trial Protocol; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

ObjectiveTo investigate the efficacy of high-intensity respiratory muscle training (combined inspiratory and expiratory muscle training) in improving inspiratory and expiratory muscle strength, inspiratory muscle endurance, peak cough flow, dyspnea, fatigue, exercise capacity, and quality of life in this population.MethodsA randomized controlled trial, concealed allocation, blinded assessments, and intention-to-treat analysis will be carried out. Altogether, 34 individuals with PD (age ≥ 50 years old, with maximum inspiratory pressure (MIP) ImpactThe results of this trial will provide valuable new information on the efficacy of high-intensity respiratory muscle training in improving muscle strength, functional outcomes, and quality of life in individuals with PD. Performing combined inspiratory and expiratory muscle training using a single equipment is cheaper and feasible, takes less time and is easy to use. In addition, this intervention will be carried out in the home environment that increases accessibility, reduces time, and costs of transport, which increases the feasibility to reproduce their findings in clinical practice.Trial registrationNCT05608941. Registered on November 8, 2022.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.