| Title |
Transdiaphragmatic pressure and neural respiratory drive measured during inspiratory muscle training in stable patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/copd.s126354 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Weiliang Wu, Xianming Zhang, Lin Lin, Yonger Ou, Xiaoying Li, Lili Guan, Bingpeng Guo, Luqian Zhou, Rongchang Chen |
| Abstract |
Inspiratory muscle training (IMT) is a rehabilitation therapy for stable patients with COPD. However, its therapeutic effect remains undefined due to the unclear nature of diaphragmatic mobilization during IMT. Diaphragmatic mobilization, represented by transdiaphragmatic pressure (Pdi), and neural respiratory drive, expressed as the corrected root mean square (RMS) of the diaphragmatic electromyogram (EMGdi), both provide vital information to select the proper IMT device and loads in COPD, therefore contributing to the curative effect of IMT. Pdi and RMS of EMGdi (RMSdi%) were measured and compared during inspiratory resistive training and threshold load training in stable patients with COPD. Pdi and neural respiratory drive were measured continuously during inspiratory resistive training and threshold load training in 12 stable patients with COPD (forced expiratory volume in 1 s ± SD was 26.1%±10.2% predicted). Pdi was significantly higher during high-intensity threshold load training (91.46±17.24 cmH2O) than during inspiratory resistive training (27.24±6.13 cmH2O) in stable patients with COPD, with P<0.01 for each. Significant difference was also found in RMSdi% between high-intensity threshold load training and inspiratory resistive training (69.98%±16.78% vs 17.26%±14.65%, P<0.01). We concluded that threshold load training shows greater mobilization of Pdi and neural respiratory drive than inspiratory resistive training in stable patients with COPD. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 96 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 19% |
| Researcher | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 13 | 14% |
| Unknown | 29 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 21% |
| Sports and Recreations | 5 | 5% |
| Psychology | 4 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 10% |
| Unknown | 33 | 34% |
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 24 August 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#2,404
of 2,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#285,015
of 324,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#68
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,578 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 324,443 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.