Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32696839›Full record

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.

Luciano Matos Chicayban, Alice Campos Hemétrio, Liz Tavares Rangel Azevedo

Open access · diamondAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 34% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 · 2022
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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 · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Luciano Matos ChicaybanLaboratório de Pesquisa em Fisioterapia Pneumofuncional e Intensiva, Institutos Superiores de Ensino do Centro Educacional Nossa Senhora Auxiliadora, Campos dos Goytacazes, RJ, Brasil.
Alice Campos HemétrioInstitutos Superiores de Ensino do Centro Educacional Nossa Senhora Auxiliadora, Campos dos Goytacazes, RJ, Brasil.
Liz Tavares Rangel AzevedoInstitutos Superiores de Ensino do Centro Educacional Nossa Senhora Auxiliadora, Campos dos Goytacazes, RJ, Brasil.
Prefeitura Municipal de Campos dos Goytacazes · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

LungRespiratory MechanicsRespiratory Physiological PhenomenaTracheostomyAgedCross-Over StudiesHumansInspiratory CapacityMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID32696839
PMCPMC7567629
OpenAlexW3045067155

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.