Trial reportJornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia2022
Effects of the breath stacking technique after upper abdominal surgery: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia, 2022. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Breath Stacking: Acute Effects on Cough Peak Flow and Chest Wall Volumes of Healthy Subjects.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the effect of the association of the breath stacking (BS) technique associated with routine physiotherapy on pulmonary function, lung volumes, maximum respiratory pressures, vital signs, peripheral oxygenation, thoracoabdominal mobility, and pain in the surgical incision in patients submitted to upper abdominal surgery during the postoperative period, as well as to analyze BS safety.
methodsThis was a randomized clinical trial involving 34 patients divided into a control group (CG; n = 16), who underwent conventional physiotherapy only, and the BS group (BSG; n = 18), who underwent conventional physiotherapy and BS. Both groups performed two daily sessions from postoperative day 2 until hospital discharge. The primary outcomes were FVC and Vt. The safety of BS was assessed by the incidence of gastrointestinal, hemodynamic, and respiratory repercussions.
resultsAlthough FVC significantly increased at hospital discharge in both groups, the effect was greater on the BSG. Significant increases in FEV1, FEV1/FVC ratio, PEF, and FEF25-75% occurred only in the BSG. There were also significant increases in Ve and Vt in the BSG, but not when compared with the CG values at discharge. MIP and MEP significantly increased in both groups, with a greater effect on the BSG. There was a significant decrease in RR, as well as a significant increase in SpO2 only in the BSG. SpO2 acutely increased after BS; however, no changes were observed in the degree of dyspnea, vital signs, or signs of respiratory distress, and no gastrointestinal and hemodynamic repercussions were observed.
conclusionsBS has proven to be safe and effective for recovering pulmonary function; improving lung volumes, maximum respiratory pressures, and peripheral oxygenation; and reducing respiratory work during the postoperative period after upper abdominal surgery.
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.