↓ Skip to main content

Effect of altering breathing frequency on maximum voluntary ventilation in healthy adults

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pulmonary Medicine, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

3 tweeters


4 Dimensions

Readers on

19 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.
Effect of altering breathing frequency on maximum voluntary ventilation in healthy adults
Published in
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12890-018-0650-4
Pubmed ID

Eric V. Neufeld, Brett A. Dolezal, William Speier, Christopher B. Cooper


Compared to other pulmonary function tests, there is a lack of standardization regarding how a maximum voluntary ventilation (MVV) maneuver is performed. Specifically, little is known about the variation in breathing frequency (fR) and its potential impact on the accuracy of test results. This study examines the effect of several preselected values for fR and one self-selected fR (fRself) on MVV. Ten participants performed MVV maneuvers at various fR values, ranging from 50 to 130 breaths·min- 1 in 10 breaths·min- 1 intervals and at one fRself. Three identical trials with 2-min rest periods were conducted at each fR, and the sequence in which fR was tested was randomized. Ventilation and related parameters were measured directly by gas exchange analysis via a metabolic measurement system. A third-order polynomial regression analysis showed that MVV = - 0.0001(fR)3 + 0.0258(fR)2-1.38(fR) + 96.9 at preselected fR and increased up to approximately 100 breaths·min- 1 (r2 = 0.982, P < 0.001). Paired t-tests indicated that average MVV values obtained at all preselected fR values, but not fRself, were significantly lower than the average maximum value across all participants. A linear regression analysis revealed that tidal volume (VT) = - 2.63(MVV) + 300.4 at preselected fR (r2 = 0.846, P < 0.001); however, this inverse relationship between VT and MVV did not remain true for the self-selected fR. The VT obtained at this fR (90.9 ± 19.1% of maximum) was significantly greater than the VT associated with the most similar MVV value (at a preselected fR of 100 breaths·min- 1, 62.0 ± 10.4% of maximum; 95% confidence interval of difference: (17.5, 40.4%), P < 0.001). This study demonstrates the shortcomings of the current lack of standardization in MVV testing and establishes data-driven recommendations for optimal fR. The true MVV was obtained with a self-selected fR (mean ± SD: 69.9 ± 22.3 breaths·min- 1) or within a preselected fR range of 110-120 breaths·min- 1. Until a comprehensive reference equation is established, it is advised that MVV be measured directly using these guidelines. If an individual is unable to perform or performs the maneuver poorly at a self-selected fR, ventilating within a mandated fR range of 110-120 breaths·min- 1 may also be acceptable.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 21%
Student > Master 3 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Other 1 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 5 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 5 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 11%
Psychology 1 5%
Chemical Engineering 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 4 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 06 June 2018.
All research outputs
of 15,922,732 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
of 1,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 282,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,922,732 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,306 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
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 282,169 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them