ArticleJournal of physical therapy science2025
Test-retest reliability of a novel unilateral thoracic expansion measurement using stretchable strain sensors.
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.
- Development and Preliminary Psychometric Evaluation of the Spiritual Needs Scale for Older Adults Receiving Palliative Care.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
[Purpose] We report here a new method for measuring unilateral thoracic expansion using stretchable strain sensors. In this study, we assessed the test-retest reliability of this method and compared left and right thoracic expansions in healthy males. [Participants and Methods] Thirty healthy males (mean age, 30.1 ± 7.4 years) participated in this study. Two strain sensors were placed on the lateral walls of the thorax at xiphoid process level. Participants were asked to take three deep breaths, and the change in sensor length from the position at maximal expiration to that at maximal inspiration was recorded. These measurements were simultaneously performed on left and right sides. Unilateral thoracic expansions were calculated to assess differences between the maximal expiratory and inspiratory positions for each deep breath. The test-retest reliability of the unilateral thoracic expansion was then examined. [Results] Test reliability was excellent for both first and second datasets. Retest reliability was also excellent. The minimum detectable change (MDC) in the retest was 3.31 mm. [Conclusion] This newly developed method for measuring thoracic expansion is sufficiently reliable. No differences in thoracic expansion were observed between left and right sides in healthy males.
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.