ArticlePloS one2020
Comparison of physical properties of voluntary coughing, huffing and swallowing in healthy subjects.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of a Miniaturized Mechanoacoustic Sensor for Continuous, Objective Cough Detection, Characterization and Physiologic Monitoring in Children With Cystic Fibrosis.IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coughing, huffing and swallowing protect the airway from aspiration. This study was conducted to compare the physical properties of voluntary coughing, huffing and swallowing in healthy subjects. Ten healthy men were asked to huff, cough and swallow repeatedly. Electromyograms (EMGs) were recorded from the left side of the external oblique (EO), sternocleidomastoid, suprahyoid (SH) and thyrohyoid muscles. Airflow was recorded using a face mask with two-way non-rebreathing valves. The expiratory velocity of huffing and coughing and the SH EMG of all actions presented high intraclass correlation coefficients (> 0.8). The inspiratory and expiratory velocities did not differ significantly between coughing and huffing. The expiratory acceleration of coughing was significantly higher than that of huffing, whereas the expiratory volume of coughing was significantly smaller than that of huffing. The EO EMG of coughing and huffing were significantly larger than that of swallowing. The EO EMG activity during the expiratory phase was significantly higher than that of the other phases of both coughing and huffing. The SH EMG of coughing and huffing were significantly smaller than that of swallowing. Correlation analysis revealed that the expiratory velocity of coughing was strongly positively correlated with that of huffing. The expiratory volume of huffing was significantly positively correlated with hand grip strength. These results suggest that EO and SH muscle activities during huffing or coughing differ those during swallowing, and huffing and coughing may work similarly in expiratory function.
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.