ArticleBrazilian journal of physical therapy
New method for evaluating maximal respiratory pressures: Concurrent validity, test-retest, and inter-rater reliability.
Article in Brazilian journal of physical therapy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of statistical choice on variability and error in maximal respiratory mouth pressure testing.Experimental physiology · 2026Article
- Effects of Resistance Respiratory Training on Respiratory Muscle Strength in Healthy Active Individuals.Muscles (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Concurrent Validity of a Low-Cost Manometer for Objective Assessments of Respiratory Muscle Strength.The Laryngoscope · 2024Article
- The effects of adding a six-month Pilates exercise program to three months of traditional community-based pulmonary rehabilitation in individuals with COPD: a prospective cohort study.Canadian journal of respiratory therapy : CJRT = Revue canadienne de la therapie respiratoire : RCTR · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMaximal respiratory pressures (MRP) obtained at functional residual capacity (FRC) may reflect the real respiratory muscle pressure.
objectivesTo evaluate concurrent validity, test-retest, and inter-rater reliability of MRP performed with a new instrument in healthy individuals, and to compare values obtained at different volumes in healthy individuals and individuals with COPD.
methodsMRP of 100 healthy individuals were obtained using the TrueForce and the MicroRPM® at residual volume (RV) and total lung capacity (TLC) to evaluate concurrent validity. MRP were obtained at FRC using the TrueForce to evaluate reliability. Comparisons of inspiratory pressure values (FRC compared to RV) and expiratory pressure values (FRC compared to TLC) were performed with 100 healthy individuals and 15 individuals with COPD.
resultsThe intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.77 and 0.86 for concurrent validity for inspiratory and expiratory pressures, respectively. Test-retest reliability showed an ICC of 0.87 for inspiratory pressure, and 0.78 for expiratory pressure; inter-rater reliability showed an ICC of 0.91 for inspiratory pressure, and 0.84 for expiratory pressure. Measurements performed at RV and TLC were higher when compared to FRC [mean difference (95%CI)= -8.30 (-11.82, -4.78) cmH
conclusionMRP performed with the TrueForce presented good concurrent validity, good test-retest reliability, excellent inter-rater reliability for inspiratory pressure and good inter-rater reliability for expiratory pressure. MRP were lower when obtained at FRC for healthy individuals and with COPD.
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.