Objective To systematically review respiratory muscle training (RMT) on respiratory functions of patients with spinal cord injury (SCI). Methods PubMed, EMbase and The Cochrane Library were electronically searched to collect the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about RMT on pulmonary functions in patients with SCI from inception to April, 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, then, meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software. Results A total of 11 RCTs involving 263 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that, compared with conventional rehabilitation group, RMT effectively improved vital capacity (MD=0.41, 95%CI 0.12 to 0.69, P=0.005), inspiratory capacity (MD=0.35, 95%CI 0.05 to 0.65, P=0.02), maximal inspiratory pressure (MD=7.75, 95%CI 0.11 to 15.39, P=0.05) and maximal voluntary ventilation (MD=17.52, 95%CI 8.11 to 26.93, P=0.000 3). There were significant differences between two groups. Conclusion Current evidence shows that RMT can effectively improve the respiratory function of patients with SCI. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high quality studies are needed to verify above conclusion.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) of Chinese rehabilitation medicine.MethodsCBM, VIP, CNKI, WanFang Data and Medlive databases were electronically searched to collect CPGs of Chinese rehabilitation medicine from January 1979 to May 2018. Four reviewers evaluated the methodological quality of the CPGs by AGREE Ⅱ.ResultsA total of 11 CPGs were included, which involved 5 CPGs on nervous system rehabilitation, 1 CPG on bone and joint system rehabilitation, 1 CPG each on pediatric rehabilitation, internal medicine system rehabilitation, burn rehabilitation, earthquake rehabilitation and rehabilitation diagnosis and treatment criteria respectively. The results of AGREE Ⅱ score showed that the average scores on six domains were 65.3%, 28.0%, 9.3%, 42.1%, 6.3% and 4.0%. There were not any level A (recommended) guidelines. Two guidelines were level B (recommended after being revised). The other nine guidelines were level C (not recommended).ConclusionsThere are a few rehabilitation CPGs in China and the quality of methodology is low. AGREE's methods and concepts have not been fully used for formulation. The rigor of development, clarity of presentation, applicability and editorial independence of guidelines should be emphasized, so as to produce high level CPGs and improve clinical practice quality in rehabilitation medicine.