ArticlePloS one2019
Acute effects of three pulmonary reexpansion modalities on thoracoabdominal motion of healthy subjects: Randomized crossover study.
Article in PloS one, 2019. 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.
- Maneuvers and strategies in respiratory physical therapy: time to revisit the evidence.Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChest physiotherapy can be an alternative to increase lung volumes through pulmonary expansion therapies, but there is still inconsistency in the literature in order to determine which device can promote a greater volume increase at the expense of a better ventilatory pattern. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the chest wall kinematics of healthy subjects submitted to the use of three different devices for pulmonary reexpansion.
methodsChest wall compartmental and operational volumes, breathing pattern and thoracoabdominal asynchrony were evaluated in 12 healthy individuals through optoelectronic plethysmography during quiet breathing, pulmonary reexpansion and recovery. Three different devices (volume-oriented incentive spirometer-IS-v; positive expiratory pressure-PEP; and incentive spirometer volume and pressure oriented-IS-vp) were administered in a random order with at least 48h between the devices.
resultsA greater volume variation in the chest wall and its compartments was observed when the IS-vp was used in comparison with the other devices (p<0.05). Furthermore, the IS-vp mobilizes a greater amount of volume accompanied by greater synchronism between the compartments when compared to IS-v (p <0.05).
conclusionThe IS-vp may be able to increase total and compartmental chest wall volumes, as well as improve synchrony among compartments when compared to IS-v and PEP devices, thus constituting an important tool for treating patients with restrictive ventilatory pattern.
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.