ArticleBrazilian journal of physical therapy
Observational practice of incentive spirometry in stroke patients.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundStroke may lead to several health problems, but positive effects can be promoted by learning to perform physical therapy techniques correctly.
objectiveTo compare two different types of observational practice (video instructions and demonstration by a physical therapist) during the use of incentive spirometry (IS).
methodA total of 20 patients with diagnosis of stroke and 20 healthy individuals (56±9.7 years) were allocated into two groups: one with observational practice with video instructions for the use of IS and the other with observational practice with demonstration by a physical therapist. Ten attempts for the correct use of IS were carried out and the number of errors and the magnitude of response were evaluated. The statistic used to compare the results was the three-way ANOVA test.
resultsThe stroke subjects showed less precision when compared to the healthy individuals (mean difference 1.80±0.38) 95%CI [1.02-2.52], p<0.0001. When the type of practice was analyzed, the stroke subjects showed more errors with the video instructions (mean difference 1.5±0.5, 95%CI [0.43-2.56] (p=0.08)) and therapist demonstration (mean difference 2.40±0.52, 95%CI [1.29-3.50] (p=0.00)) when compared to the healthy individuals.
conclusionThe stroke subjects had a worse performance in learning the use of volume-oriented incentive spirometry when compared to healthy individuals; however, there was no difference between the types of observational practice, suggesting that both may be used to encourage the use of learning IS in patients with stroke.
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.