ArticleBiosensors2026
Agreement and Reliability of a Digital Incentive Spirometer Compared with a Volume-Oriented Incentive Spirometry Device Across Different Age Groups.
Article in Biosensors, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Incentive spirometry is widely used in respiratory rehabilitation to enhance lung expansion and prevent postoperative pulmonary complications. However, conventional devices, including volume-oriented and flow-oriented incentive spirometers, rely on subjective visual interpretation, which may limit measurement accuracy and clinical utility. A digital incentive spirometer (DIS) has been developed to provide objective, real-time measurements of inspiratory volume. This study aimed to evaluate the agreement and reliability between the DIS and a volume-oriented incentive spirometer (VIS) across different age groups. A cross-sectional study was conducted in 150 participants aged 7-80 years, stratified into five age groups with equal sex distribution. Inspiratory volume was measured simultaneously using both devices. Agreement was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis, and reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). The DIS demonstrated good overall reliability (ICC = 0.868, 95% CI: 0.821-0.903). The mean difference was 48.69 mL, indicating slight overestimation by the DIS. However, the limits of agreement were wide (-469.24 to 566.63 mL), suggesting limited interchangeability. Reliability varied across age groups, with the highest ICC in older adults and the lowest in adolescents. The DIS showed good reliability but limited agreement with the VIS.
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.