Effects of respiratory muscle training on respiratory function in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
In brief
Respiratory muscle training modestly raises expiratory pressure in ALS patients
A meta-analysis of five randomized trials found that targeted breathing exercises increased maximal expiratory pressure by about 0.4 standard deviations and produced small gains in inspiratory pressure, sniff nasal pressure, peak flow, and functional rating scores. Effects on forced vital capacity and long-term outcomes were uncertain, so RMT should be used as an individualized adjunct, not a disease-modifying therapy.
- Journal
- Journal of neurology (Q1)
- Published
- 15 July 2026
- Study design
- Systematic review / meta-analysis of RCTs
- Evidence level
- Level 1, High (CEBM 1a)
- Authors
- Yanping Lei, Ju Huang, Min Li, Yan Zhang, Zhi Ye, Xiaoyan He, et al.
- PMID
- 42455190
- DOI
- 10.1007/s00415-026-13982-z
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine (top studies of the week, 19 July 2026).
- Picked for Neurology (clinical) (top studies of the week, 19 July 2026).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Respiratory decline is prognostically important in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), but the efficacy of respiratory muscle training (RMT) remains uncertain. We synthesized randomized evidence on respiratory and related outcomes. METHODS: We searched databases, specialized registers, and trial registries through June 19, 2025, for randomized RMT trials in ALS. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool. Random-effects meta-analyses reported standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and certainty was rated with GRADE. RESULTS: Six studies were included; five concurrently randomized trials contributed quantitative data, whereas Pinto 2013 was retained for qualitative context. RMT improved maximal expiratory pressure (MEP; SMD 0.387, 95% CI 0.192-0.581; P = 0.008) and showed small favorable effects on maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP; SMD 0.156, 95% CI 0.089-0.224; P = 0.005), sniff nasal inspiratory pressure (SNIP; SMD 0.216, 95% CI 0.039-0.392; P = 0.034), peak expiratory flow (PEF; SMD 0.205, 95% CI 0.088-0.323; P = 0.017), and ALSFRS-R (SMD 0.214, 95% CI 0.039-0.388; P = 0.030). Forced vital capacity showed a borderline favorable trend (SMD 0.129, 95% CI - 0.003 to 0.262; P = 0.053). Low heterogeneity estimates were imprecise because most endpoints included only three to four small studies. Certainty was moderate for MIP, low for MEP, FVC, and PEF, and very low for SNIP and ALSFRS-R. Exploratory analyses identified no reliable effect modifiers. CONCLUSIONS: RMT was associated with small, directionally consistent improvements mainly in pressure- and flow-based outcomes, whereas effects on FVC and longer-term clinical outcomes remain uncertain. RMT may be considered an individualized adjunct to ALS respiratory care, not a disease-modifying therapy. Larger, longer, standardized trials with patient-important endpoints are needed.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.