Trial reportEuropean journal of applied physiology2010
The effects of a respiratory warm-up on the physical capacity and ventilatory response in paraplegic individuals.
Trial report in European journal of applied physiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global trends in scientific production on physical exercise and spinal cord injury.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Review
- Complex network model indicates a positive effect of inspiratory muscles pre-activation on performance parameters in a judo match.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A respiratory warm-up (RWU) can improve exercise performance in able-bodied athletes. However, its effects in paraplegic individuals are unknown. On two occasions, nine male active paraplegic individuals performed an arm cranking test to exhaustion at 85% of their peak power output. In the intervention (INT) trial, this procedure was preceded by a RWU, whereas in the control (CON) trial, no RWU was conducted. Time to exhaustion was reduced following the RWU (CON vs. INT: 497 ± 163 vs. 425 ± 126 s, P = 0.02). Pulmonary ventilation was increased in the middle (74.8 ± 18.0 vs. 78.3 ± 19.6 L min(-1), P = 0.01) and end (86.1 ± 20.4 vs. 95.4 ± 23.3 L min(-1), P = 0.01) phase of exercise following the RWU. Forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) was reduced following the RWU (3.44 ± 0.45 vs. 3.27 ± 0.54 L, P = 0.02). The decrease in FEV1 following the RWU and the higher pulmonary ventilation during the INT trial suggest that the RWU fatigued the respiratory system, and hence reduced performance capacity. It is possible that the RWU used in this study is not suitable for paraplegic individuals, as their respiratory system is limited due to their disability. We conclude that a RWU impaired exercise performance in a group of active paraplegic individuals as a result of respiratory muscle fatigue.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.