ArticleBrazilian journal of physical therapy
Benefit of educational feedback for the use of positive expiratory pressure device.
Article in Brazilian journal of physical therapy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applications of positive expiratory pressure in spontaneous breathing: why, when and how?Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2025Review
- Nursing Process Related to the Nursing Focus "Airway Clearance": A Scoping Review.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPositive expiratory pressure (PEP) is regularly used as a self-administered airway clearance technique.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the need to teach the correct use of the PEP device and to measure the progress of the success rate of the maneuver after training.
methodA PEP system (PariPEP-S Sytem) was used to generate PEP in 30 healthy volunteers. They were instructed by a qualified physical therapist to breathe correctly through the PEP device. Then they were evaluated during a set of ten expirations. Two other evaluations were performed at day 2 and day 8 (before and after feedback). The mean PEP and the success rate were calculated for each set of expirations. The number of maneuvers needed to obtain a correct use was calculated on the first session.
resultsAn optimal PEP was reached after 7.5 SD 2.7 attempts by all subjects. Success rates and mean pressures were similar between the different sets of expirations (p=0.720 and p=0.326, respectively). Pressure variability was around 10%. After one week, 30% of subjects generated more than two non-optimal pressures in the set of ten expirations. No difference in success rate was observed depending on the evaluations.
conclusionThis study demonstrates that good initial training on the use of the PEP device and regular follow-up are required for the subject to reach optimal expiratory pressure.
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.