ArticleExperimental physiology2026
The impact of statistical choice on variability and error in maximal respiratory mouth pressure testing.
Article in Experimental physiology, 2026. 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 impact of statistical choice on variability and error in maximal respiratory mouth pressure testing.Experimental physiology · 2026Article
- Characterizing the respiratory muscle strength of male British Army infantry recruits.Physiological reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Various statistics have been used to assess repeatability and reproducibility of maximal inspiratory and expiratory mouth pressure measurements (PImax and PEmax, respectively). Few studies have examined the impact of rater experience on these values. The aims were to assess: (1) how choice of statistic impacted repeatability of PImax and PEmax; and (2) the impact of rater experience on reproducibility of PImax and PEmax. Thirty-one healthy adult males completed one familiarisation and two experimental visits. The PImax and PEmax were assessed using a hand-held respiratory pressure meter by three raters with different testing experience. The intraclass correlation coefficient, coefficient of variation, standard error of measurement, smallest detectable change and limits of agreement (LoA) were determined across experimental visits for a given rater and between raters to determine repeatability and reproducibility of PImax and PEmax. For PImax and PEmax, the intraclass correlation coefficient was ≥0.97 for reproducibility and 0.89-0.95 repeatability; coefficient of variation was ≤4% for reproducibility and ≤6% for repeatability; standard error of measurement was 6-9 cmH
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.