(this post is intended for a different thread but I left it here also).

Further to the immediately preceding post . . . the original Phase II study's median was 56 months (n=84), about five months more than RespiTrimALS 51 months (n=37) in their treatment group. I am not sure I understand their specification for the non-stimulation group - it seems to be more then ten years. I just discovered the Scandinavia study (n=155) was of PMA patients rather than ALS patients, 72 months. Taiwan's was 66.6 months for (n=1149) where 241 patients were on a tracheostomy.

Protocol for diaphragm pacing in patients with respiratory muscle weakness due to motor neurone disease (DiPALS): a randomised controlled trial | BMC Neurology | Full Text

Here again is an URL for crude table of studies . . . (n= ) follows the author's name in each row and the next number to the right is survival (either median or average). Although some are unknown, most are 36 months or less:

Table of ALS datasets

Hence, superficially, RespiTrimALS results appear significantly better than normal.