ArticleTurkish journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation2022
The effectiveness of additional long-term use of bottle-positive expiratory pressure in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A single-blind, randomized study.
Article in Turkish journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Blowing devices, resources and incentive screens during respiratory physiotherapy: a systematic review.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the long-term use of bottle-positive expiratory pressure (PEP) in addition to breathing exercises as a home-based rehabilitation aid on exercise capacity, spirometric parameters, and quality of life in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. Patients and methods: From a total of 30 patients with stable moderate-to-severe COPD, 24 (22 males, 2 females; mean age: 62.4+7.2 years; range, 40 to 75 years) were included in the final study and randomized into two groups: the group that performed breath retaining techniques and the group that was instructed to use the bottle-PEP in addition to these techniques. Patients were evaluated with modified Medical Research Council scale, COPD assessment test (CAT), spirometry, St. George`s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and 6-min walk distance (6MWD) before, three months and six months after the initiation of the program. Results: In the bottle-PEP group, patients` mean 6MWD increased from 380.6±67.6 to 444.1±22.0 m (p=0.002), the mean CAT score decreased from 17.8±36.8 to 12.9±6.2 (p=0.03), and the mean SGRQ total score significantly decreased from 57.1±23.1 to 47.6±21.9 (p<0.05) after three months. The improvement in 6MWD continued in six months but disappeared in SGRQ and CAT scores. In the exercise group, only the 6MWD improved, and there were no significant improvements in other parameters regardless of time. There were no significant differences between the groups in any of the parameters at any follow-up session. Conclusion: While bottle-PEP does not significantly contribute when added to breathing exercises in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD in improving function and quality of life, it can be used as a safe choice in patients` home rehabilitation programs.
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.