Trial reportJornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia
Comparison of the effects of voluntary and involuntary breath stacking techniques on respiratory mechanics and lung function patterns in tracheostomized patients: a randomized crossover clinical trial.
Trial report in Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of the breath stacking technique after upper abdominal surgery: a randomized clinical trial.Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia · 2022Trial
- Breath Stacking: Acute Effects on Cough Peak Flow and Chest Wall Volumes of Healthy Subjects.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Article
- 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
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the effects of voluntary breath stacking (VBS) and involuntary breath stacking (IBS) techniques on respiratory mechanics, lung function patterns, and inspiratory capacity in tracheostomized patients.
methodsThis was a randomized crossover clinical trial involving 20 tracheostomized patients admitted to the ICU and submitted to the VBS and IBS techniques, in random order, with an interval of 5 h between each. Ten cycles of each technique were performed with an interval of 30 s between each cycle. In VBS, patients performed successive inspirations for up to 30 s through a one-way valve, whereas in IBS, successive slow insufflations were performed with a resuscitator bag until the pressure reached 40 cmH2O. Respiratory mechanics, inspiratory capacity, and the lung function pattern were evaluated before and after the interventions.
resultsAfter IBS, there was an increase in static compliance (p = 0.007), which was also higher after IBS than after VBS (p = 0.03). There was no significant difference between the pre-VBS and post-VBS evaluations in terms of static compliance (p = 0.42). Inspiratory capacity was also greater after IBS than after VBS (2,420.7 ± 480.9 mL vs. 1,211.3 ± 562.8 mL; p < 0.001), as was airway pressure (38.3 ± 2.6 cmH2O vs. 25.8 ± 5.5 cmH2O; p < 0.001). There were no changes in resistance or lung function pattern after the application of either technique.
conclusionsIn comparison with VBS, IBS promoted greater inspiratory capacity and higher airway pressure, resulting in an increase in static compliance.
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.