| Study |
Bias |
| Randomisation process |
Deviations from intended interventions |
Missing outcome data |
Measurement of the outcome |
Selection of the reported results |
Overall |
| Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Subgroup 2.17.1 With respiratory muscle weakness |
| Chuang 2017 |
Some concerns |
Only a statement about randomisation was reported, and the two groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Low risk of bias |
All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. |
Low risk of bias |
The reason of missingness was loss of contact. |
Low risk of bias |
Observer reported outcome that do not involve judgement. |
Some concerns |
Only the journal article is available. |
Some concerns |
Lack of details about the randomisation process, and only the journal article is available. |
| Harver 1989 |
Some concerns |
Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, and both groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Low risk of bias |
All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. |
High risk of bias |
Missingness in each group was not explained. |
Low risk of bias |
Observer reported outcome that do not involve judgement, and the method of measurement was valid. |
Some concerns |
Only the journal article is available. |
High risk of bias |
Lack of details about the randomisation process, missingness, and only the journal article is available. |
| Leelarungrayub 2017 |
Some concerns |
Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, and the two groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Low risk of bias |
No participants were excluded. |
High risk of bias |
6 participants discontinued training, but there is no mention of the proportion of missingness in each group. |
Low risk of bias |
Observer reported outcome that do not involve judgement. |
Some concerns |
Only the journal article is available. |
High risk of bias |
Lack of details about the randomisation process and only the journal article is available. Missingness may be dependant on its true value. |
| Preusser 1994 |
Some concerns |
No information about allocation concealment, and both groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Low risk of bias |
No participants were excluded. |
Low risk of bias |
Missingness is independent on its true value. |
Low risk of bias |
Observer reported outcome that do not involve judgement |
Some concerns |
Only the journal article is available. |
Some concerns |
Lack of details about the randomisation process and only the journal article is available. |
| Saher 2021 |
Some concerns |
Randomisation was reported only as a sentence. Authors used concealed envelopes without mentioning if they were opaque |
High risk of bias |
ITT analysis was not applied |
Some concerns |
Missingness could depend on its true value |
Low risk of bias |
Observer reported outcome that do not involve judgement |
Some concerns |
Only the journal article is available |
High risk of bias |
Lack of details about the randomisation process, only the journal article is available, missingness could depend on its true value, and ITT analysis was not conducted. |
| Sanchez Riera 2001 |
Some concerns |
Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, and baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. |
Low risk of bias |
All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. |
Low risk of bias |
No missing data. |
Low risk of bias |
Outcome assessors were blinded |
Some concerns |
Only the journal article is available. |
Some concerns |
Lack of details about the randomisation process and only the journal article is available. |
| Weiner 2006 |
Some concerns |
Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, and both groups had similar PImax level. |
Low risk of bias |
All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. |
Low risk of bias |
No missing data. |
Low risk of bias |
Outcome assessors were blinded. |
Some concerns |
Only the journal article is available. |
Some concerns |
Lack of details about the randomisation process and only the journal article is available. |
| Wu 2017 |
Some concerns |
Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, and both groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Low risk of bias |
All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. |
Low risk of bias |
No missing data. |
Low risk of bias |
Observer reported outcome that do not involve judgements, and the method of measurement was valid. |
Some concerns |
There were some differences between the trial register and the journal article, without biasing the results. |
Some concerns |
Lack of details about the randomisation process and there are differences in reporting blinding between the trial register and journal article. |
| Wu 2017 |
Some concerns |
Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, and both groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Low risk of bias |
All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. |
Low risk of bias |
No missing data. |
Low risk of bias |
Observer reported outcome that do not involve judgements, and the method of measurement was valid. |
Some concerns |
There were some differences between the trial register and the journal article, without biasing the results. |
Some concerns |
Lack of details about the randomisation process and there are differences in reporting blinding between the trial register and journal article. |
| Xu 2018 |
Low risk of bias |
The sequence was random, concealed, and the two groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Low risk of bias |
ITT analysis was conducted. |
Low risk of bias |
Missingness is independent on its true value. |
Low risk of bias |
Outcome assessors were blinded. |
Low risk of bias |
No differences between the trial register, the conference abstracts and the journal article. |
Low risk of bias |
No detected issue with the five domains. |
| ZhouL 2016 |
Low risk of bias |
Allocation was concealed. |
Some concerns |
3 participants were excluded (6%) |
Some concerns |
No details of the reasons of missingness, but its proportion is small (6%). |
Low risk of bias |
Outcome assessors were blinded. |
Some concerns |
Only the journal article is available. |
Some concerns |
Some issues with ITT analysis, missingness could be dependant on its true value, and only the journal article is available. |
| Subgroup 2.17.2 Without respiratory muscle weakness |
| Beckerman 2005 |
Some concerns |
No information about allocation concealment, and the two groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
High risk of bias |
No reason for drop out were reported for five participants (11%). |
High risk of bias |
11 participants dropped out (6 died). However, No reasons for drop out were reported for the remaining participants. |
Low risk of bias |
Outcome assessors were blinded. |
Some concerns |
Only the journal article is available. |
High risk of bias |
No information about allocation concealment or a trial register. 26% of the participants dropped out of the study with no reason reported for 11%. |
| Belman 1988 |
Some concerns |
Randomisation was reported only as a sentence. |
Low risk of bias |
All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. |
Low risk of bias |
missing data are due to intercurrent illnessess and pneumothorax. |
Low risk of bias |
Observed‐reported outcome that do not involve judgement. |
Some concerns |
Only the journal article is available. |
Some concerns |
Lack of details about allocation concealment and only the journal article is available. |
| Berton 2015 |
Some concerns |
No information about allocation concealment. |
Low risk of bias |
All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. |
Low risk of bias |
Missingness is independent on its true value. |
Low risk of bias |
Outcome assessors were blinded. |
Some concerns |
No information if adjusted analysis were planned in advance. |
Some concerns |
No information about allocation concealment and if adjusted analysis were planned in advance. |
| Bustamante 2007 |
Some concerns |
Only a statement about randomisation was reported, the two groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Low risk of bias |
No participants were excluded. |
Low risk of bias |
No missing data. |
Low risk of bias |
Observer‐reported outcome that do not involve judgements, and the method of measurement was valid. |
Some concerns |
Only the journal article is available. |
Some concerns |
No details about allocation concealment, randomisation and only the journal article is available. |
| Covey 2001 |
Some concerns |
Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, and the two groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Some concerns |
No ITT analysis were conducted, with no impact on the results. |
Some concerns |
Missingness is balanced between the two groups |
Low risk of bias |
Observer reported outcome that do not involve judgements, and the method of measurement was valid. |
Some concerns |
Only the journal article is available. |
Some concerns |
Lack of details about the randomisation process, no ITT was conducted, missingness could depend on its true value, and only the journal article is available. |
| Dacha 2019 |
Low risk of bias |
From personal communication with the trialist, the suequence was random, concealed, and the groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Low risk of bias |
From personal communication with the trialist, ITT was conducted. |
Low risk of bias |
No missing data. |
Low risk of bias |
Outcome assessors were blinded. |
Some concerns |
Only the abstract and the trial register are available (study ongoing) |
Some concerns |
Only the abstract and the trial register are available (ongoing study). |
| Hill 2006 |
Some concerns |
No information about allocation concealment. |
Low risk of bias |
All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. |
Low risk of bias |
The data of only two participants (5%) are missing. |
Low risk of bias |
Outcome assessors were blinded. |
Some concerns |
Only the journal article is available. |
Some concerns |
Lack of details about allocation concealment, and only the journal article is available. |
| Hsiao 2003 |
Some concerns |
Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, and the two groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
High risk of bias |
10% of participants were excluded (per protocol analysis). |
Some concerns |
Missingness is unlikely to be dependant on its true value. |
Low risk of bias |
Observer reported outcome that do not involve judgement. |
Some concerns |
Only the journal article is available. |
High risk of bias |
Lack of details about the randomisation process and only the journal article is available. There are serious issues with ITT and missingness is likely to be dependant on the outcome. |
| Kim 1993 |
Some concerns |
Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, and both groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Low risk of bias |
Participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. |
Some concerns |
Missingness is balanced between the two groups. |
Low risk of bias |
Observer reported outcome that do not involve judgement. |
Some concerns |
Only the journal article is available. |
Some concerns |
Lack of details about the randomisation process, only the journal article is available and missingness could depend on the outcome. |
| Koppers 2006 |
Some concerns |
Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, the two groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Low risk of bias |
All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. |
Low risk of bias |
7% of the data are missing (3 participants out of 39). |
Low risk of bias |
Observer reported outcome that do not involve judgements. |
Some concerns |
Only the journal article is available. |
Some concerns |
Lack of details about the randomisation process and only the journal article is available. |
| Langer 2018 |
Low risk of bias |
Allocation was random, concealed, and baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. |
Low risk of bias |
All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. |
Low risk of bias |
No missing data. |
Low risk of bias |
Outcome assessors were blinded, and the method of measurement was valid. |
Low risk of bias |
No differences between the trial register, the abstracts, and the journal article. |
Low risk of bias |
No detected issues with the five domains. |
| Larson 1999 |
Some concerns |
Randomisation was reported only as a sentence. |
Some concerns |
It is unclear if the reasons of exclusion might have an impact on the results. |
High risk of bias |
some of the reasons of missingness are: lack of interest, inability to perform training, poor adherence. |
Low risk of bias |
Observer reported outcome that do not involve judgement. |
Some concerns |
Only the journal article is available. |
High risk of bias |
Lack of details about the randomisation process, and only the trial register is available. There is some concern with ITT and missingness is likely to be dependant on the outcome. |
| Lisboa 1997 |
Some concerns |
Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, and the two groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Low risk of bias |
All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. |
Low risk of bias |
No missing data. |
Low risk of bias |
Outcome assessors were blinded. |
Some concerns |
Only the journal article is available. |
Some concerns |
Lack of details about allocation concealment and only the journal article is available. |
| Nikoletou 2016 |
Some concerns |
No information about allocation concealment, and the two groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Some concerns |
3 participants (5%) were excluded due to poor adherence. |
Some concerns |
Missingness is balanced between the two groups. |
Low risk of bias |
Outcome assessors were blinded. |
Some concerns |
Lack of details about the randomisation process, no ITT analysis, important amount of missing data and only the journal article is available. |
Some concerns |
Lack of details about the randomisation process, some issues with ITT analysis, important amount of missing data and only the journal article is available. |
| Petrovic 2012 |
Some concerns |
Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, and the two groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Low risk of bias |
All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. |
Low risk of bias |
No missing data. |
Low risk of bias |
Observer reported outcome that do not involve judgements, and the method of measurement is valid. |
Some concerns |
No additional information were provided in the trial register. |
Some concerns |
Lack of details about the randomisation process and the trial register does not provide supplementary information. |
| Ramirez Sarmiento 2002 |
Some concerns |
Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, and no differences between the groups at visual inspection. |
High risk of bias |
12% of the participants were excluded. |
Low risk of bias |
Missingness is independent on its true value. |
Low risk of bias |
Observer reported outcome that do not involve judgement. |
Some concerns |
Only the journal article is available. |
High risk of bias |
Lack of details about the randomisation process, only the journal article is available and ITT analysis was not conduted appropriately. |
| Saka 2021 |
Some concerns |
Lack of details about allocation concealment |
Low risk of bias |
All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation |
Low risk of bias |
Missingness is independent on its true value |
Low risk of bias |
The outcome was measured according to international guidelines |
Some concerns |
Lack of details in the trial register |
Some concerns |
Lack of details about the randomisation process, and the trial register did not provide sufficient information. |
| Scherer 2000 |
Some concerns |
No information about allocation concealment, and both groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Low risk of bias |
One participant excluded due to rip fracture. |
Some concerns |
Missingness was balanced between the two groups |
Low risk of bias |
Observer reported outcome that do not involve judgement. |
Some concerns |
Only the journal article is available. |
Some concerns |
Lack of details about the randomisation process, only the journal article is available and missingness could be dependent on its true value. |
| Xu 2018 |
Low risk of bias |
The sequence was random, concealed, and the two groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Low risk of bias |
ITT analysis was conducted. |
Low risk of bias |
Missingness is independent on its true value. |
Low risk of bias |
Outcome assessors were blinded. |
Low risk of bias |
No differences between the trial register, the conference abstracts and the journal article. |
Low risk of bias |
No detected issue with the five domains. |
