ArticleClinical neurophysiology practice2025
Evaluating diaphragm motor response variability in electric and magnetic phrenic nerve stimulations during passive expiration.
Article in Clinical neurophysiology practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Relationship Between the Cortico-Diaphragmatic Conduction Pathway and Cardiopulmonary Function in Healthy Individuals.The clinical respiratory journal · 2026Article
- Evaluating diaphragm motor response variability in electric and magnetic phrenic nerve stimulations during passive expiration.Clinical neurophysiology practice · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study assessed variability in cervical electrical (CEPNS) and magnetic (CMPNS) phrenic nerve stimulation alongside transcranial magnetic stimulation (diTMS) of the diaphragm, focusing on motor response latency and amplitude at individually calculated suprathreshold intensities. Methods: Diaphragm motor responses were elicited via CEPNS and CMPNS (measuring compound muscle action potentials, CMAPs) and diTMS (measuring diaphragm motor evoked potentials, diMEPs). Latency and amplitude were recorded. Statistical analyses compared methods, evaluated variability using coefficients of variation (CV), and explored associations with height and central motor conduction time. Results: Among 25 participants (mean age 25 ± 4 years), CMPNS evoked CMAPs in 21 subjects, CEPNS in 16, with 12 responding to both. No significant latency or amplitude differences emerged between CEPNS and CMPNS responders. TMS evoked diMEPs in 24 participants. Latency was more consistent than amplitude across all methods; CMPNS exhibited the lowest amplitude variability. Height moderately correlated positively with CMAP latency and negatively with central motor conduction time. Conclusions: Individually adapted suprathreshold CEPNS and CMPNS assessed phrenic nerve conduction with varying success rates. Latency was a more reliable measure than amplitude. CMPNS and diTMS surpassed CEPNS in response reliability, positioning magnetic stimulations as preferable for assessing phrenic nerve conduction. CEPNS might not be suitable for examining motor response amplitudes when not applied at supramaximal intensity. Height-related anatomical factors influencing conduction merit further study. Significance: Latency of diaphragm motor responses elicited at individually estimated stimulation intensities offers a more consistent biomarker over amplitude for assessing phrenic nerve function.
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.