ArticleJournal of physical therapy science2016
The effects of breathing with mainly inspiration or expiration on pulmonary function and chest expansion.
Article in Journal of physical therapy science, 2016. 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.
- Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
[Purpose] This study aimed to determine the effects of inspiration- and expiration-oriented breathing on pulmonary function and chest expansion. [Subjects and Methods] Twenty healthy male university students were divided randomly into inspiration-oriented and expiration-oriented breathing groups. Their pulmonary function and chest size during inspiration or expiration were evaluated and then re-evaluated after 15 minutes of breathing exercise five times a week for four weeks. [Results] The breathing with mainly inspiration group (BMIG) showed significant differences in chest size during inspiration (CSI), chest expansion values (CEVs), forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), and peak expiratory flow (PEF) after four weeks. The breathing with mainly expiration group (BMEG) showed significant differences in all measured variables except CSI. Comparison of the groups after exercise showed that the BMEG demonstrated differences from the BMIG in chest size during expiration (CSE), CEV, and PEF. Comparison of the changes in variables after exercise showed that the BMEG demonstrated significantly different changes in CSE, CEV, FEV1/FVC, and PEF. The BMIG showed a significantly different change in FVC. [Conclusion] Although both groups demonstrated improvements in pulmonary function and chest expansion, inter-group differences were observed. Therefore, inspiration- or expiration-oriented breathing may be recommended differently according to the desired outcome.
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.