ArticleJournal of lifestyle medicine2020
Efficacy of Balloon Blowing Exercise on Peak Expiratory Flow Rate in Young Adult Smokers.
Article in Journal of lifestyle medicine, 2020. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSmoking cigarettes which progressively impairs the lung functions is a leading risk factor for early death and disability worldwide. Alternate use of the tobacco products along with some exercise practicing behaviour help to prevent the impairment of lung function because most smokers fail to cease smoking. The objective of this research was to find out the effectiveness of the balloon blowing exercise among the young adult smokers using the peak expiratory flow meter.
methodsA quasi- experimental study in which 100 male participants were included according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Pre-test and Post-test was taken using Peak expiratory flow meter, after intervention is provided.
resultsThe mean appraise of the Group A pre-test was 287.1 and the post-test was 283.2, and the mean appraise of the Group B pre-test was 279.7 and the post-test was 367.2. The significant appraise was .581 for Group A and .000 for the Group B since the p < 0.05. The study shows the significant result as the p appraise is less than 0.05.
conclusionThis study concludes that there was a significant increase in the peak expiratory flow rate in the post test of Group B.
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.