ArticleAnnals of rehabilitation medicine2023
Effect of the Inspiratory Method and Timing of Voluntary Cough on Peak Cough Flow.
Article in Annals of rehabilitation medicine, 2023. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Objective Assessment of the Cough: Listening to the Patient's Voice. A Narrative Review.Tuberculosis and respiratory diseases · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo define the effect of the inspiratory method and cough timing on peak cough flow (PCF).
methodsWe investigated the effect of measurement conditions on PCF in healthy subjects (n=10). We then compared obstructive and restrictive pulmonary diseases (n=20) to assess for similar results in respiratory diseases. The PCF was measured under four conditions: before coughing, without maneuver 1 or with maneuver 2 a temporary respiratory pause (4-6 seconds) after rapid inspiration, and without maneuver 3 or with maneuver 4 a temporary respiratory pause after slow inspiration. After the measurements were completed, the PCF between the four conditions was compared for each subject group, and the effect size was calculated.
resultsPCF of maneuvers 1 and 3 were significantly higher than maneuver 4 in healthy subjects (476.34±102.05 L/min and 463.44±107.14 L/min vs. 429.54±116.83 L/min, p<0.01 and p<0.05, respectively) and patients with restrictive pulmonary disease (381.96±145.31 L/min, 354.60±157.36 L/min vs. 296.94±137.49 L/min, p<0.01 and p<0.05, respectively). In obstructive pulmonary disease, maneuver 1 was significantly higher than maneuver 4 (327.42±154.73 L/min vs. 279.48±141.10 L/min, p<0.05). The largest effect sizes were shown by maneuvers 4 and 1.
conclusionPCF depends on changes in inspiratory speed before coughing and on temporary respiratory pauses after maximal inspiration. It will become necessary to unify the measurement methods for coughing strength and present appropriate coughing methods.
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.