ArticleThe Laryngoscope2024
Concurrent Validity of a Low-Cost Manometer for Objective Assessments of Respiratory Muscle Strength.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of breathing training on swallowing function in patients with neurogenic dysphagia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Psychometric properties of volitional tests used to measure respiratory muscle strength and endurance: A systematic review.Canadian journal of respiratory therapy : CJRT = Revue canadienne de la therapie respiratoire : RCTR · 2025Pooled it
- The State of Exercise-Based Dysphagia Intervention in the Literature: A Scoping Review.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025Review
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
Abstract
OBJECTIVE(S): This study examined the agreement in maximal expiratory (MEP) and inspiratory (MIP) pressure readings between two digital manometers: (1) the MicroRPM - the gold-standard manometer for respiratory muscle strength testing; and (2) the LDM - a low-cost, commercially available, alternative manometer.
methodsPositive (MEP) and negative (MIP) pressures were simultaneously applied to the MicroRPM and LDM using a 3-liter syringe within a controlled laboratory setting. Pressure readings were compared, and agreement was analyzed using Lin's concordance correlation (ρ
resultsA total of 150 trials were completed, ranging from -167 to +208 cmH
conclusionsThere was a median difference of 1.0% in MEP and MIP pressure readings consistently observed between the LDM and MicroRPM. Despite these relatively small differences, excellent agreement between the two manometers was present. These data suggest the LDM may be a valid, lower cost alternative to the MicroRPM for objectively assessing respiratory strength in clinical practice; however, additional research is needed in healthy adults and in patient populations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 134:1831-1836, 2024.
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.