Trial reportPloS one2014
Inspiratory high frequency airway oscillation attenuates resistive loaded dyspnea and modulates respiratory function in young healthy individuals.
Trial report in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Training to Improve Dyspnoea Study- Patient Experiences of Using a High Frequency Airway Oscillating Device.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Direct chest-wall percussion can reduce breathlessness in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and respiratory function may be improved, in health and disease, by respiratory muscle training (RMT). We tested whether high-frequency airway oscillation (HFAO), a novel form of airflow oscillation generation can modulate induced dyspnoea and respiratory strength and/or patterns following 5 weeks of HFAO training (n = 20) compared to a SHAM-RMT (conventional flow-resistive RMT) device (n = 15) in healthy volunteers (13 males; aged 20-36 yrs). HFAO causes oscillations with peak-to-peak amplitude of 1 cm H2O, whereas the SHAM-RMT device was identical but created no pressure oscillation. Respiratory function, dyspnoea and ventilation during 3 minutes of spontaneous resting ventilation, 1 minute of maximal voluntary hyperventilation and 1 minute breathing against a moderate inspiratory resistance, were compared PRE and POST 5-weeks of training (2 × 30 breaths at 70% peak flow, 5 days a week). Training significantly reduced NRS dyspnoea scores during resistive loaded ventilation, both in the HFAO (p = 0.003) and SHAM-RMT (p = 0.005) groups. Maximum inspiratory static pressure (cm H2O) was significantly increased by HFAO training (vs. PRE; p<0.001). Maximum inspiratory dynamic pressure was increased by training in both the HFAO (vs. PRE; p<0.001) and SHAM-RMT (vs. PRE; p = 0.021) groups. Peak inspiratory flow rate (L.s(-1)) achieved during the maximum inspiratory dynamic pressure manoeuvre increased significantly POST (vs. PRE; p = 0.001) in the HFAO group only. HFAO reduced inspiratory resistive loading-induced dyspnoea and augments static and dynamic maximal respiratory manoeuvre performance in excess of flow-resistive IMT (SHAM-RMT) in healthy individuals without the respiratory discomfort associated with RMT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.