↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic methods to assess inspiratory and expiratory muscle strength*

Overview of attention for article published in Jornal de Pneumologia, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
110 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Diagnostic methods to assess inspiratory and expiratory muscle strength*
Published in
Jornal de Pneumologia, January 2015
DOI 10.1590/s1806-37132015000004474
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pedro Caruso, André Luis Pereira de Albuquerque, Pauliane Vieira Santana, Leticia Zumpano Cardenas, Jeferson George Ferreira, Elena Prina, Patrícia Fernandes Trevizan, Mayra Caleffi Pereira, Vinicius Iamonti, Renata Pletsch, Marcelo Ceneviva Macchione, Carlos Roberto Ribeiro Carvalho

Abstract

Impairment of (inspiratory and expiratory) respiratory muscles is a common clinical finding, not only in patients with neuromuscular disease but also in patients with primary disease of the lung parenchyma or airways. Although such impairment is common, its recognition is usually delayed because its signs and symptoms are nonspecific and late. This delayed recognition, or even the lack thereof, occurs because the diagnostic tests used in the assessment of respiratory muscle strength are not widely known and available. There are various methods of assessing respiratory muscle strength during the inspiratory and expiratory phases. These methods are divided into two categories: volitional tests (which require patient understanding and cooperation); and non-volitional tests. Volitional tests, such as those that measure maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures, are the most commonly used because they are readily available. Non-volitional tests depend on magnetic stimulation of the phrenic nerve accompanied by the measurement of inspiratory mouth pressure, inspiratory esophageal pressure, or inspiratory transdiaphragmatic pressure. Another method that has come to be widely used is ultrasound imaging of the diaphragm. We believe that pulmonologists involved in the care of patients with respiratory diseases should be familiar with the tests used in order to assess respiratory muscle function.Therefore, the aim of the present article is to describe the advantages, disadvantages, procedures, and clinical applicability of the main tests used in the assessment of respiratory muscle strength.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 70 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Student > Master 7 10%
Professor 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 35 49%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 14%
Sports and Recreations 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 40 56%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 September 2017.
All research outputs
#20,723,696
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Jornal de Pneumologia
#464
of 719 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#267,066
of 359,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Jornal de Pneumologia
#32
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 719 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 359,894 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.