Reference Values for Maximal Inspiratory Pressure: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP) is the most commonly used measure to evaluate inspiratory muscle strength. Normative values for MIP vary significantly among studies, which may reflect differences in participant demographics and technique of MIP measurement. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review with meta-analyses to synthesize MIP values that represent healthy adults. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL) and Sport Discus databases. Two reviewers identified and selected articles, and abstracted data. Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tool. A random-effects model was used to calculate overall means and 95% CIs. RESULTS: Of 22 included articles, MIP data were synthesized according to age group and sex from six reports (n=840) in the meta-analyses. The mean QUADAS score was 3.5 of 7. The age range was between 18 and 83 years (426 men, 414 women). MIP began to decrease with age in the 40 to 60 years age range and continued to fall progressively with age. For the same age group, men tended to have higher MIPs than women. Sensitivity analysis of withdrawing studies from the meta-analysis identified one study that contributed more to heterogeneity in some age groups. DISCUSSION: MIP was higher in men and decreased with age, which was initially apparent in middle age. Several characteristics of participants and MIP technique influence values in healthy individuals. CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis provides normative MIP values that are reflective of a large sample (n=840) and likely represents the broadest representation of participant characteristics compared with previous reports of normative data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.130 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".