ArticleScientific reports2025
An ultrasound measurement method for assessing diaphragm mobility during maximal respiration.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study proposes a new method B-mode ultrasound to assess right hemidiaphragm mobility during maximal respiration in healthy adults. In 29 healthy volunteers, the mean and coefficient of variation of diaphragmatic excursion measured by M-mode and a new B-mode measurements were compared, and their agreement was assessed using the Bland-Altman analysis. Intra-observer and inter-observer agreement were analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) in 15 healthy volunteers. The mean values for diaphragmatic mobility using M-mode and B-mode ultrasound methods were 6.03 ± 1.21 cm and 3.97 ± 0.93 cm, respectively, with coefficients of variation of 0.1103 ± 0.0627 and 0.0772 ± 0.0347. The Bland-Altman plot showed the consistency of the two methods. The ICCs for the first and second M-mode measurements by the senior physician, compared with those by the junior physician, were 0.851 (95% CI: 0.615-0.947), 0.671 (95% CI: 0.177-0.883), and 0.659 (95% CI: 0.168-0.877). For the B-mode ultrasound measurements, the corresponding ICC values were 0.812 (95% CI: 0.533-0.933), 0.832 (95% CI: 0.464-0.945), and 0.701 (95% CI: 0.208-0.896)." Measurements of diaphragmatic excursion using B-mode ultrasound show strong agreement with M-mode ultrasound in healthy volunteers, in addition to demonstrating lower variability and higher reproducibility.
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.