ArticleHong Kong physiotherapy journal : official publication of the Hong Kong Physiotherapy Association Limited = Wu li chih liao2026
Effects of positive inspiratory and expiratory pressure on diaphragmatic mobility in asymptomatic individuals: Randomised, crossover clinical trial.
Article in Hong Kong physiotherapy journal : official publication of the Hong Kong Physiotherapy Association Limited = Wu li chih liao, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The application of positive pressure (CPAP) improves pulmonary ventilation, but may negatively impact diaphragm geometry and function. Diaphragm mobility and strength are essential for lung function. Consequently, impairment of the diaphragm can reduce respiratory capacity. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the effects of positive pressure on diaphragm mobility in healthy individuals during spontaneous breathing. Methods: This is a randomised, crossover, double-blind clinical trial involving asymptomatic individuals aged 18-50 years. Participants randomly received the following non-invasive ventilation: continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) of 5, 10, and 15 cmH Results: The study included 82 volunteers. Diaphragmatic mobility increased during CPAP at 15 cmH2O and in bi-level modes with inspiratory positive airway pressures (IPAPs) of 10, 12, and 15 cmH2O (with PEEP fixed at 5 cmH2O), compared to spontaneous breathing. The mean differences and confidence intervals for these comparisons were as follows: [CPAP 15 cmH2O versus spontaneous breathing (SB) ( Conclusion: The positive inspiratory and expiratory pressures were sufficient to increase diaphragmatic kinetics, particularly when higher positive pressures were used.
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.