SynthesisCanadian journal of respiratory therapy : CJRT = Revue canadienne de la therapie respiratoire : RCTR2025
Psychometric properties of volitional tests used to measure respiratory muscle strength and endurance: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Canadian journal of respiratory therapy : CJRT = Revue canadienne de la therapie respiratoire : RCTR, 2025. 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.
- Prediction models for dynamic respiratory muscle strength in COPD and asthma patients based on fixed-pressure inspiratory muscle performance.BMC pulmonary medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: It is essential that diagnostic tests for evaluating respiratory muscles have proven reliability and validity. This study aims to synthesize studies that evaluated the psychometric properties of volitional tests used to measure respiratory muscle strength and endurance. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed, LILACS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus and SciELO. Primary studies that evaluated the reliability and validity of volitional tests to measure respiratory muscle strength and endurance were included. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Tool (CAT). Results: Twenty-eight studies were included in this review, describing the psychometric properties of eight different approaches to measuring respiratory muscle strength and endurance. Respiratory muscle strength and endurance were assessed using static maximal inspiratory pressure, static maximal expiratory pressure, dynamic maximal inspiratory pressure, sustained maximal inspiratory pressure, nasal inspiratory pressure, manual respiratory muscle measurements, and maximal incremental inspiratory muscle performance. Overall, the studies included were of good methodological quality. Data related to validity and reliability showed excellent results for the maximum inspiratory pressure and maximum expiratory pressure, with maximum ICC values of 0.979 (CI 0.947-0.991) and 0.989 (CI 0.022-0.001), respectively. Other tests evaluated did not present high reliability and validity. Conclusion: This review concluded that volitional tests vary in reliability for measures of respiratory muscle strength and endurance. The more traditional ones, such as maximum inspiratory pressure and maximum expiratory pressure, presented higher validity and reliability values compared to the other tests.
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.