Rib Mobilization and Diaphragm Release on Diaphragmatic Mobility and Pulmonary Function in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Feasibility Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a study to measure the effects of a protocol combining Rib mobilization technique (RMT) and diaphragm release technique (DRT) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), investigating its impact on diaphragmatic mobility, pulmonary function, and functional capacity. Methods: A clinical trial including 14 patients divided into 2 groups: RMT+DRT and DRT. Six intervention sessions were conducted, with assessments performed at Pre, Post 1, Post 6, and Follow-up time points. Outcomes included diaphragmatic mobility (ultrasound), thoracoabdominal kinematics (optoelectronic plethysmography), maximal respiratory pressures (manovacuometry), functional capacity (six-minute walk test [6MWT]), and perceived improvement (patients' global impression of change scale). Results: The protocol was well tolerated, with strong compliance and no adverse events reported. The RMT+DRT group demonstrated a clinically relevant improvement in diaphragmatic mobility (19.58 mm) and in the 6MWT distance (27.23 m), both exceeding the clinically significant difference thresholds. A relative reduction in maximal expiratory pressure was observed in the RMT+DRT group. No statistically significant differences were observed between groups for thoracoabdominal kinematics and maximal inspiratory pressure. Conclusion: This feasibility study suggests that a study of the combination of rib mobilization and diaphragmatic release is a feasible and well-tolerated intervention for patients with COPD, and may have a positive impact on respiratory mechanics and functional capacity. The findings provide a basis for sample size calculation and protocol refinement in future clinical trials to confirm its therapeutic effects.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".