| Title |
Inspiratory muscle training for asthma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd003792.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ivanizia S Silva, Guilherme AF Fregonezi, Fernando AL Dias, Cibele TD Ribeiro, Ricardo O Guerra, Gardenia MH Ferreira |
| Abstract |
In some people with asthma, expiratory airflow limitation, premature closure of small airways, activity of inspiratory muscles at the end of expiration and reduced pulmonary compliance may lead to lung hyperinflation. With the increase in lung volume, chest wall geometry is modified, shortening the inspiratory muscles and leaving them at a sub-optimal position in their length-tension relationship. Thus, the capacity of these muscles to generate tension is reduced. An increase in cross-sectional area of the inspiratory muscles caused by hypertrophy could offset the functional weakening induced by hyperinflation. Previous studies have shown that inspiratory muscle training promotes diaphragm hypertrophy in healthy people and patients with chronic heart failure, and increases the proportion of type I fibres and the size of type II fibres of the external intercostal muscles in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. However, its effects on clinical outcomes in patients with asthma are unclear. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 534 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 527 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 88 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 76 | 14% |
| Researcher | 40 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 39 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 38 | 7% |
| Other | 87 | 16% |
| Unknown | 166 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 138 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 103 | 19% |
| Sports and Recreations | 26 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 19 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 16 | 3% |
| Other | 47 | 9% |
| Unknown | 185 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 24 April 2014.
All research outputs
#12,821,812
of 22,721,584 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,791
of 12,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,787
of 197,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#178
of 228 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,721,584 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 197,573 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 228 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.