ArticlePloS one2021
Pulmonary function with expiratory resistive loading in healthy volunteers.
Article in PloS one, 2021. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Imposed expiratory resistance, dynamic hyperinflation and locomotor power and fatigue.Experimental physiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Expiratory flow limitation is a key characteristic in obstructive pulmonary diseases. To study abnormal lung mechanics isolated from heterogeneities of obstructive disease, we measured pulmonary function in healthy adults with expiratory loading. Thirty-seven volunteers (25±5 yr) completed spirometry and body plethysmography under control and threshold expiratory loading of 7, 11 cmH2O, and a subset at 20 cmH2O (n = 11). We analyzed the shape of the flow-volume relationship with rectangular area ratio (RAR; Ma et al., Respir Med 2010). Airway resistance was increased (p<0.0001) with 7 and 11 cmH2O loading vs control (9.20±1.02 and 11.76±1.68 vs. 2.53± 0.80 cmH2O/L/s). RAR was reduced (p = 0.0319) in loading vs control (0.45±0.07 and 0.47±0.09L vs. 0.48±0.08). FEV1 was reduced (p<0.0001) in loading vs control (3.24±0.81 and 3.23±0.80 vs. 4.04±1.05 L). FVC was reduced (p<0.0001) in loading vs control (4.11±1.01 and 4.14±1.03 vs. 5.03±1.34 L). Peak expiratory flow (PEF) was reduced (p<0.0001) in loading vs control (6.03±1.67 and 6.02±1.84 vs. 8.50±2.81 L/s). FEV1/FVC (p<0.0068) was not clinically significant and FRC (p = 0.4) was not different in loading vs control. Supra-physiologic loading at 20 cmH2O did not result in further limitation. Expiratory loading reduced FEV1, FVC, PEF, but there were no clinically meaningful differences in FEV1/FVC, FRC, or RAR. Imposed expiratory loading likely leads to high airway pressures that resist dynamic airway compression. Thus, a concave expiratory flow-volume relationship was consistently absent-a key limitation for model comparison with pulmonary function in COPD. Threshold loading may be a useful strategy to increase work of breathing or induce dynamic hyperinflation.
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.