SynthesisRespiratory care2024
Reliability and Validity of Maximal Respiratory Pressures.
Synthesis in Respiratory care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ramadan fasting influences respiratory sarcopenia and plasma markers of neuromuscular junction health in older adults.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
- Smoking quitting promotes neuromuscular and cartilage recovery in knee osteoarthritis.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
- Effects of Resistance Respiratory Training on Respiratory Muscle Strength in Healthy Active Individuals.Muscles (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Impact of Breast-Conserving Therapy and Radiotherapy on Respiratory Parameters and Quality of Life in Women with Breast Cancer in Terms of Rehabilitation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Acute Adenosine Receptor Antagonism in Combination With Acute Intermittent Hypoxia to Promote Breathing Plasticity in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: Protocol for a Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMaximal respiratory pressure is used to assess the inspiratory and expiratory muscles strength by using maximal inspiratory pressure (P
methodsThis systematic review followed the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) recommendations and was reported by using the PRISMA checklist. Studies published before March 2023 were searched in PubMed and EMBASE databases.
resultsA total of 642 studies were identified by using the online search strategy and manual search (602 and 40, respectively). Twenty-three studies were included. The level of evidence for test-retest reliability was moderate for P
conclusionsOnly concurrent validity of maximal respiratory pressure measured with the manometers evaluated in this review presented a high level of evidence. The quality of clinical studies by using maximal respiratory pressure would be improved if more high-quality studies on measurement properties, by following well established guidelines and the COSMIN initiative, were available.
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.