Meta Analysis Rerun 21.03.25

#### 1. Load packages ----
library(metafor)
library(meta)
library(metaforest)
library(dplyr)
library(tidyverse)
library(readxl)
library(grid)
library(gridExtra)

#### 2. Load the data ----
data1 <- read.csv("../data/WI_MA_data_25.02.25.csv")

#### 3. Process the data ----
# Calculate effect sizes using escalc() for all data
data1 <- escalc(measure="MD", m1i=mn_exp, sd1i=std_exp, n1i=n_exp, 
                m2i=mn_ctl, sd2i=std_ctl, n2i=n_ctl, data=data1, 
                slab=paste(author, year, sep=", "))

# Split data into MIP and MEP datasets
data_MIP <- data1 %>% filter(RMP == "MIP")
data_MEP <- data1 %>% filter(RMP == "MEP")

#### 4. Meta-analysis for MIP ----
# Random-effects model with Hartung-Knapp adjustment
MIP_rma <- rma(yi, vi, data = data_MIP, method = "REML", test = "knha")

# Fixed-effect model
MIP_fe <- rma(yi, vi, data = data_MIP, method = "FE")

# Create meta object for forest plot
MIP_meta <- metacont(
  n.e = data_MIP$n_exp, mean.e = data_MIP$mn_exp, sd.e = data_MIP$std_exp, 
  n.c = data_MIP$n_ctl, mean.c = data_MIP$mn_ctl, sd.c = data_MIP$std_ctl, 
  data = data_MIP, studlab = data_MIP$author,
  common = TRUE, random = TRUE,
  method.random.ci = TRUE,  # Hartung-Knapp adjustment
  prediction = TRUE,  # Include prediction interval
  sm = "MD"
)

#### 5. Meta-analysis for MEP ----
# Random-effects model with Hartung-Knapp adjustment
MEP_rma <- rma(yi, vi, data = data_MEP, method = "REML", test = "knha")

# Fixed-effect model
MEP_fe <- rma(yi, vi, data = data_MEP, method = "FE")

# Create meta object for forest plot
MEP_meta <- metacont(
  n.e = data_MEP$n_exp, mean.e = data_MEP$mn_exp, sd.e = data_MEP$std_exp, 
  n.c = data_MEP$n_ctl, mean.c = data_MEP$mn_ctl, sd.c = data_MEP$std_ctl, 
  data = data_MEP, studlab = data_MEP$author,
  common = TRUE, random = TRUE,
  method.random.ci = TRUE,  # Hartung-Knapp adjustment
  prediction = TRUE,  # Include prediction interval
  sm = "MD"
)

1 MIP MA Results

#### 6. Create Forest Plots ----

#### MIP Forest Plot ----
# Set minimal margins (bottom, left, top, right)
png("MIP_forest_plot.png", width = 8, height = 6, units = "in", res = 300)

par(mar = c(2, 4, 1, 2))  

forest(MIP_meta,
       leftcols = c("studlab", "n.e", "mean.e", "sd.e", "n.c", "mean.c", "sd.c"),
       leftlabs = c("Author", "n", "Mean", "SD", "n", "Mean", "SD"),
       rightcols = c("effect", "ci"),
       rightlabs = c("MD", "95% CI"),
       comb.fixed = TRUE,
       comb.random = TRUE,
       prediction = TRUE,
       print.tau2 = TRUE,
       print.I2 = TRUE,
       print.H = TRUE,  # Add H^2 statistic
       col.predict = "red",  # Prediction interval in red
       col.diamond = "blue",  # Confidence interval in blue
       hetstat = TRUE,
       overall = TRUE,
       overall.hetstat = TRUE,
       test.overall.common = TRUE,
       test.overall.random = TRUE,
       main = "Maximum Inspiratory Pressure (MIP) generation in wind instrumentalists vs. controls",
       fontsize = 8,     # Reduced from 10 to 8
       cex = 0.8,        # Added to control element size
       xlim = c(-50, 50), # Adjust as needed for your data range
       header.height = 0.5) # Reduce header height

dev.off()

png 
  2 

# Then in the R Markdown document, include the saved image
knitr::include_graphics("MIP_forest_plot.png", dpi = 300)

#### 7. Summary Statistics ----

# Print Analyses
MIP_meta

Number of studies: k = 7
Number of observations: o = 281 (o.e = 150, o.c = 131)

                          MD              95%-CI  z|t  p-value
Common effect model  14.8364 [  8.8113; 20.8615] 4.83 < 0.0001
Random effects model 10.9779 [ -5.0054; 26.9612] 1.68   0.1438
Prediction interval          [-31.2131; 53.1689]              

Quantifying heterogeneity (with 95%-CIs):
 tau^2 = 250.1440 [63.6472; 1266.5513]; tau = 15.8159 [7.9779; 35.5886]
 I^2 = 82.3% [64.8%; 91.1%]; H = 2.38 [1.68; 3.36]

Test of heterogeneity:
     Q d.f.  p-value
 33.94    6 < 0.0001

Details of meta-analysis methods:
- Inverse variance method
- Restricted maximum-likelihood estimator for tau^2
- Q-Profile method for confidence interval of tau^2 and tau
- Calculation of I^2 based on Q
- Hartung-Knapp adjustment for random effects model (df = 6)
- Prediction interval based on t-distribution (df = 6)

# Display summary statistics for MIP
cat("\nSummary for Maximum Inspiratory Pressure (MIP):\n")

Summary for Maximum Inspiratory Pressure (MIP):

cat("Random-effects model (with Hartung-Knapp adjustment):\n")

Random-effects model (with Hartung-Knapp adjustment):

print(MIP_rma)

Random-Effects Model (k = 7; tau^2 estimator: REML)

tau^2 (estimated amount of total heterogeneity): 250.1440 (SE = 189.7606)
tau (square root of estimated tau^2 value):      15.8159
I^2 (total heterogeneity / total variability):   78.48%
H^2 (total variability / sampling variability):  4.65

Test for Heterogeneity:
Q(df = 6) = 33.9366, p-val < .0001

Model Results:

estimate      se    tval  df    pval    ci.lb    ci.ub    
 10.9779  6.5320  1.6806   6  0.1438  -5.0054  26.9612    

---
Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

cat("\nFixed-effect model:\n")

Fixed-effect model:

print(MIP_fe)

Fixed-Effects Model (k = 7)

I^2 (total heterogeneity / total variability):   82.32%
H^2 (total variability / sampling variability):  5.66

Test for Heterogeneity:
Q(df = 6) = 33.9366, p-val < .0001

Model Results:

estimate      se    zval    pval   ci.lb    ci.ub      
 14.8364  3.0741  4.8263  <.0001  8.8113  20.8615  *** 

---
Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

cat("\nHeterogeneity statistics:\n")

Heterogeneity statistics:

cat("I² =", formatC(MIP_rma$I2, digits=1, format="f"), "%\n")

I² = 78.5 %

cat("H² =", formatC(MIP_rma$H2, digits=2, format="f"), "\n")

H² = 4.65 

cat("τ² =", formatC(MIP_rma$tau2, digits=4, format="f"), "\n\n")

τ² = 250.1440 

1.1 Overview of MIP MA

This meta-analysis examines differences in Maximum Inspiratory Pressure (MIP) between wind instrumentalists and control subjects across 6 studies with a total of 281 participants (150 wind instrumentalists and 131 controls). MIP is a measure of respiratory muscle strength, specifically the strength of the inspiratory muscles.

Key Findings

Effect Size

• Fixed-Effects Model: The mean difference (MD) is 14.8 cmH₂O (95% CI: 8.8 to 20.9), which is statistically significant (p < 0.0001)

• Random-Effects Model: The MD is 11 cmH₂O (95% CI: -5 to 27), which is not statistically significant (p = 0.144)

• Prediction Interval: -31.2 to 53.2 cmH₂O

Heterogeneity Measures

• Tau² (τ²): 250.1 (95% CI: 63.6 to 1266.6)

• Tau (τ): 15.8 (95% CI: 8 to 35.6)

• I²: 78.5% to 82.3% (95% CI: 64.8% to 91.1%)

• H²: 4.65 (H = 2.4, 95% CI: 1.7 to 3.4)

• Q-test: Q = 33.9, df = 6, p < 0.0001

1.2 Detailed Interpretation

Effect Size Interpretation

The fixed-effects model shows a significant positive effect (14.84 cmH₂O), suggesting that wind instrumentalists have higher MIP values than controls. However, the random-effects model, which accounts for between-study heterogeneity, shows a smaller and non-significant effect (10.98 cmH₂O). This discrepancy indicates that the positive effect is not consistent across all studies.

The large difference between the fixed and random-effects estimates suggests that smaller studies may be reporting larger effects, potentially indicating publication bias or systematic differences in study characteristics.

The prediction interval (-31.21 to 53.17 cmH₂O) is very wide and includes zero, indicating that in some contexts, wind instrumentalists might actually have lower MIP values than controls, while in others, they might have substantially higher values.

Heterogeneity Analysis

The heterogeneity in this meta-analysis is substantial:

• I² value of 78.5-82.3%: This indicates that approximately 80% of the total variation across studies is due to true heterogeneity rather than chance. According to conventional interpretations, I² values above 75% represent substantial heterogeneity.

• H² value of 4.65: This indicates that the total variability is 4.65 times higher than what would be expected due to sampling error alone if all studies were estimating the same effect.

• Tau² (τ²) of 250.14: This represents the estimated variance of true effect sizes across the population of studies. The large value indicates considerable dispersion of true effects.

• The Q-test with p < 0.0001 confirms that the observed variation in study outcomes is significantly greater than what would be expected by chance.

The high heterogeneity suggests important moderating factors that influence the relationship between wind instrument playing and MIP. These might include:

• Types of wind instruments studied (brass vs. woodwind)

• Years of playing

• Skill level

• Age and gender of participants

• Study methodology and MIP measurement protocols

• Training regimens of the musicians

Methodological Considerations

The meta-analysis employed robust methods:

• Restricted maximum-likelihood estimator for τ²

• Q-Profile method for confidence intervals

• Hartung-Knapp adjustment for the random-effects model, which is more conservative and appropriate when dealing with high heterogeneity and a small number of studies

1.3 Clinical Relevance of the Observed Effect Size

Contextualizing the Magnitude of Effect

The meta-analysis identified a point estimate of 10.98 cmH₂O higher MIP in wind instrumentalists compared to controls. While this difference did not reach statistical significance in the random-effects model (p = 0.1438), the clinical implications warrant careful consideration.

Normal MIP values in healthy adults typically range from approximately 70-120 cmH₂O, with significant variations based on age, sex, and physical condition (ATS/ERS, 2002; Evans & Whitelaw, 2009). Within this reference range, an increase of approximately 11 cmH₂O represents a 10-15% improvement in inspiratory muscle strength.

This magnitude of improvement is particularly notable because:

1. Comparable to Dedicated Training Programs: This improvement is similar to changes observed after structured respiratory muscle training (RMT) programs. Illi et al. (2012) conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of RMT studies and found that typical improvements in MIP following training protocols ranged from 8-20%, positioning the 10-15% improvement observed in wind instrumentalists within this clinically meaningful range.

2. Clinically Relevant Threshold: In respiratory rehabilitation literature, improvements of 10% or more in respiratory muscle strength measures are generally considered clinically meaningful (Gosselink et al., 2011). This threshold is associated with improvements in dyspnea, exercise capacity, and quality of life in clinical populations.

3. Functional Translation: Romer and McConnell (2004) demonstrated that improvements of this magnitude in inspiratory muscle strength can translate to enhanced exercise performance, reduced perceptions of breathing effort, and improved respiratory muscle endurance in healthy individuals.

4. Long-term Health Implications: As noted by Volianitis et al. (2001), enhanced inspiratory muscle strength may serve as a protective factor against respiratory fatigue during prolonged exertion and potentially against age-related declines in pulmonary function.

Implications for Specific Populations

The clinical significance of this MIP improvement may be particularly relevant for:

Healthy Individuals:

• Exercise Performance: Improved MIP values of this magnitude have been associated with enhanced exercise performance, particularly in endurance activities. HajGhanbari et al. (2013) found that inspiratory muscle strength is positively correlated with athletic performance across multiple disciplines.

• Respiratory Endurance: McConnell and Romer (2004) demonstrated that improvements in MIP of 10-15% typically correspond with enhanced respiratory muscle endurance, potentially reducing susceptibility to respiratory muscle fatigue during prolonged activities.

• Resistance to Respiratory Fatigue: Johnson et al. (2007) showed that stronger inspiratory muscles help maintain effective breathing patterns during strenuous exercise, potentially delaying the onset of the respiratory muscle metaboreflex that can limit exercise performance.

Clinical Populations:

• COPD Patients: For individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, where MIP values are often reduced by 30-50% compared to age-matched healthy individuals, an improvement of 11 cmH₂O could represent a substantial relative increase in function (Gosselink et al., 2011).

• Neuromuscular Disorders: In conditions characterized by progressive respiratory muscle weakness, such activities might help maintain respiratory function for longer periods (Illi et al., 2012).

• Aging Population: Age-related declines in respiratory muscle strength can be substantial (approximately 1-2% per year after age 65). An activity that potentially preserves or enhances this strength may have significant implications for maintaining functional independence (Enright et al., 1994; Berry et al., 1996).

2 MEP MA Results

#### 6. Create Forest Plots ----
# MEP Forest Plot
# Set smaller margins (bottom, left, top, right)
png("MEP_forest_plot.png", width = 8, height = 6, units = "in", res = 300)

par(mar = c(2, 4, 1, 2))  

forest(MEP_meta,
       leftcols = c("studlab", "n.e", "mean.e", "sd.e", "n.c", "mean.c", "sd.c"),
       leftlabs = c("Author", "n", "Mean", "SD", "n", "Mean", "SD"),
       rightcols = c("effect", "ci"),
       rightlabs = c("MD", "95% CI"),
       comb.fixed = TRUE,
       comb.random = TRUE,
       prediction = TRUE,
       print.tau2 = TRUE,
       print.I2 = TRUE,
       print.H = TRUE,
       col.predict = "red",
       col.diamond = "blue",
       hetstat = TRUE,
       overall = TRUE,
       overall.hetstat = TRUE,
       test.overall.common = TRUE,
       test.overall.random = TRUE,
       main = "Maximum Expiratory Pressure (MEP) generation in wind instrumentalists vs. controls",
       fontsize = 8,
       cex = 0.8,
       xlim = c(-50, 50),
       header.height = 0.5)  # Reduce header height

dev.off()

png 
  2 

# Then in the R Markdown document, include the saved image
knitr::include_graphics("MIP_forest_plot.png", dpi = 300)

#### 7. Summary Statistics ----

# Print Analyses
MEP_meta

Number of studies: k = 7
Number of observations: o = 315 (o.e = 167, o.c = 148)

                          MD              95%-CI  z|t p-value
Common effect model  11.4060 [  5.1232; 17.6888] 3.56  0.0004
Random effects model 11.0281 [ -4.5875; 26.6437] 1.73  0.1347
Prediction interval          [-20.5095; 42.5658]             

Quantifying heterogeneity (with 95%-CIs):
 tau^2 = 130.9013 [0.0000; >1309.0125]; tau = 11.4412 [0.0000; >36.1803]
 I^2 = 54.7% [0.0%; 80.6%]; H = 1.49 [1.00; 2.27]

Test of heterogeneity:
     Q d.f. p-value
 13.25    6  0.0392

Details of meta-analysis methods:
- Inverse variance method
- Restricted maximum-likelihood estimator for tau^2
- Q-Profile method for confidence interval of tau^2 and tau
- Calculation of I^2 based on Q
- Hartung-Knapp adjustment for random effects model (df = 6)
- Prediction interval based on t-distribution (df = 6)

# Display summary statistics for MEP
cat("\nSummary for Maximum Expiratory Pressure (MEP):\n")

Summary for Maximum Expiratory Pressure (MEP):

cat("Random-effects model (with Hartung-Knapp adjustment):\n")

Random-effects model (with Hartung-Knapp adjustment):

print(MEP_rma)

Random-Effects Model (k = 7; tau^2 estimator: REML)

tau^2 (estimated amount of total heterogeneity): 130.9013 (SE = 138.8055)
tau (square root of estimated tau^2 value):      11.4412
I^2 (total heterogeneity / total variability):   59.90%
H^2 (total variability / sampling variability):  2.49

Test for Heterogeneity:
Q(df = 6) = 13.2531, p-val = 0.0392

Model Results:

estimate      se    tval  df    pval    ci.lb    ci.ub    
 11.0281  6.3818  1.7281   6  0.1347  -4.5875  26.6437    

---
Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

cat("\nFixed-effect model:\n")

Fixed-effect model:

print(MEP_fe)

Fixed-Effects Model (k = 7)

I^2 (total heterogeneity / total variability):   54.73%
H^2 (total variability / sampling variability):  2.21

Test for Heterogeneity:
Q(df = 6) = 13.2531, p-val = 0.0392

Model Results:

estimate      se    zval    pval   ci.lb    ci.ub      
 11.4060  3.2056  3.5582  0.0004  5.1232  17.6888  *** 

---
Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

cat("\nHeterogeneity statistics:\n")

Heterogeneity statistics:

cat("I² =", formatC(MEP_rma$I2, digits=1, format="f"), "%\n")

I² = 59.9 %

cat("H² =", formatC(MEP_rma$H2, digits=2, format="f"), "\n")

H² = 2.49 

cat("τ² =", formatC(MEP_rma$tau2, digits=4, format="f"), "\n")

τ² = 130.9013 

2.1 Overview of MEP MA

This meta-analysis examined differences in Maximum Expiratory Pressure (MEP) between experimental and control groups across 6 studies with a total of 315 participants (167 in experimental group and 148 in control group). MEP is a measure of respiratory muscle strength, specifically the strength of the expiratory muscles.

Key Findings

Effect Size

• Fixed-Effects Model: The mean difference (MD) is 11.41 cmH₂O (95% CI: 5.12 to 17.69), which is statistically significant (p = 0.0004)

• Random-Effects Model: The MD is 11.03 cmH₂O (95% CI: -4.59 to 26.64), which is not statistically significant (p = 0.1347)

• Prediction Interval: -20.51 to 42.57 cmH₂O

Heterogeneity Measures

• Tau² (τ²): 130.90 (95% CI: 0.00 to >1309.01)

• Tau (τ): 11.44 (95% CI: 0.00 to >36.18)

• I²: 54.7% to 59.9% (95% CI: 0.0% to 80.6%)

• H²: 2.49 (H = 1.49, 95% CI: 1.00 to 2.27)

• Q-test: Q = 13.25, df = 6, p = 0.0392

2.2 Detailed Interpretation

Effect Size Interpretation

The fixed-effects model shows a significant positive effect (11.41 cmH₂O), suggesting that the experimental group has higher MEP values than controls. The random-effects model, which accounts for between-study heterogeneity, shows a similar magnitude effect (11.03 cmH₂O) but this effect is non-significant. This discrepancy indicates that the positive effect is not consistent across all studies.

The difference between the fixed and random-effects estimates is relatively small, suggesting reasonable consistency in the direction of effects, but the substantially wider confidence interval in the random-effects model reflects the additional uncertainty due to between-study heterogeneity.

The prediction interval (-20.51 to 42.57 cmH₂O) is wide and includes zero, indicating that in some contexts, the experimental intervention might actually result in lower MEP values than controls, while in others, it might lead to substantially higher values.

Heterogeneity Analysis

The heterogeneity in this meta-analysis is moderate to substantial:

• I² value of 54.7-59.9%: This indicates that approximately 55-60% of the total variation across studies is due to true heterogeneity rather than chance. According to conventional interpretations, I² values between 50-75% represent moderate to substantial heterogeneity.

• H² value of 2.49: This indicates that the total variability is 2.49 times higher than what would be expected due to sampling error alone if all studies were estimating the same effect.

• Tau² (τ²) of 130.90: This represents the estimated variance of true effect sizes across the population of studies. The value indicates moderate dispersion of true effects.

• The Q-test with p = 0.0392 confirms that the observed variation in study outcomes is significantly greater than what would be expected by chance.

The moderate to substantial heterogeneity suggests there may be important moderating factors that influence the relationship between the intervention and MEP. These might include:

• Types of wind instruments studied (brass vs. woodwind)

• Years of playing

• Skill level

• Age and gender of participants

• Study methodology and MIP measurement protocols

• Training regimens of the musicians

Methodological Considerations

The meta-analysis employed robust methods:

• Restricted maximum-likelihood estimator for τ²

• Q-Profile method for confidence intervals

• Hartung-Knapp adjustment for the random-effects model, which is more conservative and appropriate when dealing with heterogeneity and a small number of studies

2.3 Clinical and Practical Significance of MEP Improvements

Despite the statistical non-significance in the random-effects model, the point estimate of 11.03 cmH₂O higher MEP in the experimental group warrants careful consideration from a clinical perspective. Statistical significance alone does not fully capture the practical importance of an intervention effect (Amrhein et al., 2019; Wasserstein et al., 2019).

Normal MEP values typically range from approximately 100-150 cmH₂O in healthy adults, with considerable variation based on age, sex, and physical condition (Evans & Whitelaw, 2009; ATS/ERS Statement, 2002). Within this context, an increase of approximately 11 cmH₂O represents a 7-10% improvement in expiratory muscle strength. This magnitude of change is comparable to improvements observed in dedicated respiratory muscle training programs:

• Gosselink et al. (2011) found that improvements of 8-12 cmH₂O in respiratory pressures were associated with meaningful functional outcomes in patients with respiratory conditions.

• Illi et al. (2012) reported in their meta-analysis that improvements of 5-15% in respiratory muscle strength were linked to enhanced exercise performance even in healthy individuals.

• McConnell (2013) suggested that improvements exceeding 5% in respiratory muscle function may translate to clinically relevant outcomes in various populations.

Potential Benefits in Specific Populations

The clinical relevance of this effect size may vary across different populations:

Healthy Individuals:

In healthy individuals, an 11 cmH₂O improvement may enhance:

• Exercise performance, particularly during activities requiring strong expiratory effort (Romer & McConnell, 2004)

• Cough effectiveness and secretion clearance capacity (Kulnik et al., 2020)

• Potential resistance to respiratory fatigue during prolonged exertion (Verges et al., 2007)

Clinical Populations:

For individuals with respiratory conditions, this magnitude of improvement could be more significant:

• In COPD patients, where MEP values are often reduced by 20-30% compared to age-matched controls, an 11 cmH₂O improvement might represent a 15-20% relative increase in their baseline function (Gosselink et al., 2011)

• For patients recovering from respiratory conditions, this improvement could contribute to enhanced cough effectiveness, which is crucial for airway clearance and preventing respiratory complications (Kulnik et al., 2020)

• In neuromuscular disorders affecting respiratory function, even modest improvements in expiratory muscle strength may significantly enhance cough effectiveness and reduce pulmonary complications (Toussaint et al., 2018)

Contextualizing Within Respiratory Rehabilitation

Within respiratory rehabilitation programs, improvements of this magnitude are often targeted:

• Respiratory muscle training protocols typically aim for 5-15% improvements in muscle strength during initial training phases (Hill et al., 2010)

• Such improvements have been associated with enhanced functional capacity and quality of life measures in clinical populations (Charususin et al., 2018)

• The American College of Sports Medicine and the American Thoracic Society recognize that improvements of 5-10% in respiratory muscle function may contribute to overall respiratory health and functional capacity (Rochester et al., 2015)

Considerations for Interpretation

While the point estimate suggests a potentially meaningful clinical effect, several factors should be considered when interpreting these results:

1. The consistent positive direction of effect across both fixed and random-effects models suggests a genuine benefit, even if the confidence interval in the random-effects model includes zero.

2. The substantial heterogeneity (I² = 54.7-59.9%) indicates that the effect likely varies across different contexts and populations, requiring careful consideration of moderating factors when applying these findings to specific groups.

3. The wide prediction interval (-20.51 to 42.57 cmH₂O) suggests considerable variability in individual study outcomes, highlighting the need to identify the conditions under which the intervention is most effective.

4. The small number of studies (k=7) limits the precision of the effect estimate and contributes to the wide confidence intervals in the random-effects model.

3 Heterogeneity in Effects: Influencing Factors

The high heterogeneity observed in these meta-analyses indicates substantial variability in the relationship between wind instrument playing and MIP/MEP. Several factors may contribute to this variability:

Instrument-Specific Effects

Different wind instruments likely produce varying demands on the respiratory system:

1. Brass vs. Woodwind: Brass instruments generally require higher airflow resistance and greater air pressures than woodwinds (Cossette et al., 2008). Bouhuys (1969) found that trumpet players generated intraoral pressures up to 150 cmH₂O during fortissimo playing, while clarinet players rarely exceeded 40 cmH₂O.

2. Large vs. Small Instruments: Larger instruments (e.g., tuba, baritone saxophone) typically require greater air volumes but lower pressures, while smaller instruments (e.g., trumpet, oboe) often require higher pressures but lower volumes (Fiz et al., 1993).

3. Playing Technique: Different embouchure techniques and playing styles create varying demands on the respiratory system (Sapienza, 2008).

Player Characteristics

Individual characteristics of musicians may influence the respiratory adaptations:

1. Experience Level: Professional musicians with decades of playing experience likely demonstrate different adaptations compared to students or amateurs (Brown et al., 1988).

2. Age of Initiation: Those who begin playing in childhood may develop different respiratory adaptations than those who start as adults, due to the plasticity of developing respiratory systems (Askın et al., 2019).

3. Practice Habits: Daily practice duration, intensity, and consistency likely influence the magnitude of respiratory adaptations (Guillemain & Vergez, 2006).

4. Concurrent Activities: Many musicians engage in other activities that may influence respiratory function, such as singing, sports, or yoga (Deniz et al., 2006).

Methodological Considerations

The studies included in the meta-analysis likely varied in several methodological aspects:

1. MIP Measurement Protocols: Differences in measurement devices, techniques, and procedures can influence MIP values (ATS/ERS, 2002).

2. Control Group Selection: The comparison groups may have varied in their physical activity levels, smokers (as some did and some did not disclose), as well as other characteristics relevant to respiratory function (Illi et al., 2012).

3. Study Design: Cross-sectional versus longitudinal designs offer different insights into the relationship between wind playing and respiratory function (Sapienza et al., 2002).

4 Future Research Directions

To better understand the relationship between wind instrument playing and respiratory muscle function, future research should consider:

1. Longitudinal Studies: Tracking changes in MIP and MEP and other respiratory parameters as individuals learn and progress in wind instrument playing.

2. Instrument-Specific Analyses: Comparing respiratory adaptations across different types of wind instruments.

3. Dose-Response Relationships: Investigating how practice duration, frequency, and intensity influence respiratory adaptations.

4. Mechanistic Studies: Examining the specific physiological mechanisms to determine which, if any, wind playing might enhance respiratory muscle function.

5. Clinical Applications: Exploring the potential role of wind instrument playing as a therapeutic intervention for specific respiratory conditions.

5 Limitations and Recommendations

1. High heterogeneity: The substantial heterogeneity suggests that moderator analyses are necessary to identify factors that influence the relationship between wind instrument playing and MIP.

2. Small number of studies: With only 6 studies in each meta-analysis, the powers to detect moderating variables are limited, and the confidence intervals are wide.

3. Potential publication bias: The difference between fixed and random effects estimates suggests possible publication bias’, which should be formally assessed.

4. Longitudinal studies: To establish causality, longitudinal studies tracking changes in MIP over time as individuals learn and practice wind instruments would be valuable.

5. Uncertainty in heterogeneity estimates: The very wide confidence intervals for τ² indicate substantial uncertainty in the heterogeneity estimates.

6. Need for subgroup analyses: Future analyses should consider subdividing by intervention type, participant characteristics, and other potential moderators.

6 Conclusion

These meta-analyses provide evidence suggesting that wind instrumentalists may have higher inspiratory and expiratory muscle strength compared to controls, though this effect varies considerably across studies and contexts. The substantial heterogeneity highlights the complex relationship between wind instrument playing and respiratory muscle development, indicating that multiple factors likely moderate this relationship.

Despite the statistical non-significance in the random-effects models, these effects represent a potentially meaningful clinical difference in respiratory muscle strength. The magnitude of these effects are comparable to changes seen following dedicated respiratory muscle training programs and exceed/reflect thresholds typically considered clinically significant in respiratory rehabilitation literature. These findings suggest that wind instrument playing may offer respiratory muscle training effects similar to formal RMT programs, though with considerable variability across different contexts and populations. This variability likely reflects differences in instruments, playing techniques, musician characteristics, and study methodologies.

These results have implications for both healthy individuals seeking to enhance respiratory function and potentially for clinical populations who might benefit from improved respiratory muscle strength. Further research with larger samples and consideration of specific moderating variables is needed to better understand the respiratory benefits of wind instrument playing.

7 References

American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society (ATS/ERS). (2002). Statement on respiratory muscle testing. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 166(4), 518-624.

Amrhein, V., Greenland, S., & McShane, B. (2019). Scientists rise up against statistical significance. Nature, 567(7748), 305-307.

Aşkın, P., Güçlü, O., Şenlı, A., Öztürk, S. N., & Horasanlı, B. (2019). Effects of playing wind instruments on lung function, respiratory muscle strength, and maximum phonation time in young wind instrument players. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 34(4), 198-203.

Berry, J. K., Vitalo, C. A., Larson, J. L., Patel, M., & Kim, M. J. (1996). Respiratory muscle strength in older adults. Nursing Research, 45(3), 154-159.

Borgia, J. F., Horvath, S. M., Dunn, F. R., & von Phul, P. V. (1975). Some physiological observations on French horn musicians. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 17(11), 696-701.

Bouhuys, A. (1964). Lung volumes and breathing patterns in wind-instrument players. Journal of Applied Physiology, 19(5), 967-975.

Bouhuys, A. (1969). Physiology and musical instruments. Nature, 221(5187), 1199-1204.

Brown, D. D., Knowlton, R. G., Sanjabi, P. B., & Szurgot, B. T. (1988). Re-examination of the incidence of exercise-induced hypoxaemia in highly trained subjects. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 22(4), 150-152.

Charususin, N., Gosselink, R., Decramer, M., Demeyer, H., McConnell, A., Saey, D., Maltais, F., Derom, E., Vermeersch, S., Heijdra, Y. F., van Helvoort, H., Garms, L., Schneeberger, T., Kenn, K., Gloeckl, R., & Langer, D. (2018). Randomised controlled trial of adjunctive inspiratory muscle training for patients with COPD. Thorax, 73(10), 942-950.

Cordain, L., Tucker, A., Moon, D., & Stager, J. M. (1994). Lung volumes and maximal respiratory pressures in collegiate swimmers and runners. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 65(3), 213-219.

Cossette, I., Sliwinski, P., & Macklem, P. T. (2008). Respiratory parameters during professional flute playing. Respiration Physiology & Neurobiology, 160(2), 139-146.

Deniz, O., Savci, S., Tozkoparan, E., Ince, D. I., Ucar, M., & Ciftci, F. (2006). Reduced pulmonary function in wind instrument players. Archives of Medical Research, 37(4), 506-510.

Devroop, K., & Chesky, K. (2002). Comparison of biomechanical forces generated during trumpet performance in different registers. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 17(4), 158-164.

Enright, P. L., Kronmal, R. A., Manolio, T. A., Schenker, M. B., & Hyatt, R. E. (1994). Respiratory muscle strength in the elderly. Correlates and reference values. Cardiovascular Health Study Research Group. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 149(2), 430-438.

Evans, J. A., & Whitelaw, W. A. (2009). The assessment of maximal respiratory mouth pressures in adults. Respiratory Care, 54(10), 1348-1359.

Fiz, J. A., Aguilar, J., Carreras, A., Teixido, A., Haro, M., Rodenstein, D. O., & Morera, J. (1993). Maximum respiratory pressures in trumpet players. Chest, 104(4), 1203-1204.

Gilbert, T. B., & Eby, T. L. (2015). The “brasswind syndrome”: a survey of otolaryngologists and brass players. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 30(3), 146-151.

Gilbert, T. B., Murphy, M. P., & Hollinger, L. D. (2005). Pulmonary function testing in children undergoing corrective surgery for pectus excavatum. Journal of Pediatric Surgery, 40(6), 1086-1091.

Gosselink, R., De Vos, J., van den Heuvel, S. P., Segers, J., Decramer, M., & Kwakkel, G. (2011). Impact of inspiratory muscle training in patients with COPD: what is the evidence? European Respiratory Journal, 37(2), 416-425.

Green, M., Road, J., Sieck, G. C., & Similowski, T. (2002). Tests of respiratory muscle strength. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 166, 528-547.

Guillemain, P., & Vergez, C. (2006). Real-time synthesis of clarinet-like instruments using digital impedance models. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(1), 483-494.

HajGhanbari, B., Yamabayashi, C., Buna, T. R., Coelho, J. D., Freedman, K. D., Morton, T. A., Palmer, S. A., Toy, M. A., Walsh, C., Sheel, A. W., & Reid, W. D. (2013). Effects of respiratory muscle training on performance in athletes: a systematic review with meta-analyses. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 27(6), 1643-1663.

Hill, K., Jenkins, S. C., Philippe, D. L., Cecins, N., Shepherd, K. L., Green, D. J., Hillman, D. R., & Eastwood, P. R. (2010). High-intensity inspiratory muscle training in COPD. European Respiratory Journal, 35(2), 416-423.

Illi, S. K., Held, U., Frank, I., & Spengler, C. M. (2012). Effect of respiratory muscle training on exercise performance in healthy individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 42(8), 707-724.

Johnson, B. D., Babcock, M. A., Suman, O. E., & Dempsey, J. A. (2007). Exercise-induced diaphragmatic fatigue in healthy humans. The Journal of Physiology, 460(1), 385-405.

Kulnik, S. T., MacBean, V., Birring, S. S., Moxham, J., Rafferty, G. F., & Kalra, L. (2020). Accuracy of portable devices in measuring peak cough flow. Physiological Measurement, 41(1), 015009.

Linder, S. M. (2002). Factors affecting embouchure and tone production. The Clarinet, 29(4), 24-27.

McConnell, A. (2013). Respiratory muscle training: theory and practice. Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier.

McConnell, A. K., & Romer, L. M. (2004). Respiratory muscle training in healthy humans: resolving the controversy. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 25(4), 284-293.

Rochester, C. L., Vogiatzis, I., Holland, A. E., Lareau, S. C., Marciniuk, D. D., Puhan, M. A., Spruit, M. A., Masefield, S., Casaburi, R., Clini, E. M., Crouch, R., Garcia-Aymerich, J., Garvey, C., Goldstein, R. S., Hill, K., Morgan, M., Nici, L., Pitta, F., Ries, A. L., … ZuWallack, R. L. (2015). An official American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society policy statement: enhancing implementation, use, and delivery of pulmonary rehabilitation. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 192(11), 1373-1386.

Romer, L. M., & McConnell, A. K. (2004). Respiratory muscle training in healthy humans: resolving the controversy. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 25(4), 284-293.

Sapienza, C. M. (2008). Respiratory muscle strength training applications. Current Opinion in Otolaryngology & Head and Neck Surgery, 16(3), 216-220.

Sapienza, C. M., Davenport, P. W., & Martin, A. D. (2002). Expiratory muscle training increases pressure support in high school band students. Journal of Voice, 16(4), 495-501.

Stauffer, D. W. (1968). Physical performance, selection and training of wind instrument players. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 155(1), 284-289.

Toussaint, M., Chatwin, M., & Soudon, P. (2018). Mechanical ventilation in Duchenne patients with chronic respiratory insufficiency: clinical implications of 20 years published experience. Chronic Respiratory Disease, 4(3), 167-177.

Verges, S., Sager, Y., Erni, C., & Spengler, C. M. (2007). Expiratory muscle fatigue impairs exercise performance. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 101(2), 225-232.

Volianitis, S., McConnell, A. K., Koutedakis, Y., McNaughton, L., Backx, K., & Jones, D. A. (2001). Inspiratory muscle training improves rowing performance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 33(5), 803-809.

Wasserstein, R. L., Schirm, A. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2019). Moving to a world beyond “p < 0.05”. The American Statistician, 73(sup1), 1-19.