ArticleJournal of physical therapy science2025
Reproducibility and minimal detectable change of sustained maximal inspiratory pressure in healthy adults.
Article in Journal of physical therapy science, 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.
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
[Purpose] This study aimed to verify the reproducibility and minimal detectable change of sustained maximal inspiratory pressure measured using the test of incremental respiratory endurance, establishing it as an index of respiratory muscle function. [Participants and Methods] Thirty healthy young adults (mean age: 24.8 ± 2.7 years) participated. Sustained maximal inspiratory pressure was measured two or three times using the test of incremental respiratory endurance. Its relative and absolute reliabilities were assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman analysis. The minimal detectable change and percentage of minimal detectable change were also calculated. [Results] The intraclass correlation coefficients for sustained maximal inspiratory pressure were 0.937 and 0.969, respectively, indicating high reliability across both re-measurement criteria. Bland-Altman analysis showed no systematic bias. Minimal detectable change values were 124.7 and 88.4 pressure time units, with corresponding percentage of minimal detectable change values of 23.8% and 16.9%, respectively. [Conclusion] Sustained maximal inspiratory pressure demonstrated high reliability and no systematic bias, suggesting its potential as a valid measure of respiratory muscle endurance. Using this measure as a reference for repeated measurements may enhance accuracy. Future research should assess its applicability in older adults and clinical populations.
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.