ReviewEuropean journal of applied physiology2023
Distinguishing science from pseudoscience in commercial respiratory interventions: an evidence-based guide for health and exercise professionals.
Review in European journal of applied physiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of breathing route on pulmonary and sensory responses to ozone exposure during exercise in adults.Physiological reports · 2026Trial
- Effects of inspiratory muscle training combined with circadian rhythm-based running programs in male children football players.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Editorial: Adaptations and responses to respiratory interventions.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Ultrasonographic evaluation of diaphragm fatigue in healthy humans.Experimental physiology · 2025Article
- Article
- Effects of inspiratory muscle training on 1RM performance and body composition in professional natural bodybuilders.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
- Comparative Study of Different Respiratory Muscle Training Methods: Effects on Cardiopulmonary Indices and Athletic Performance in Elite Short-Track Speedskaters.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Body Oxygen Level Test (BOLT) is not associated with exercise performance in highly-trained individuals.Frontiers in physiology · 2024Article
- Editorial: Breathing in sport and exercise: physiology, pathophysiology and applications.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Article
- Respiratory muscle training induces additional stress and training load in well-trained triathletes-randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Respiratory function has become a global health priority. Not only is chronic respiratory disease a leading cause of worldwide morbidity and mortality, but the COVID-19 pandemic has heightened attention on respiratory health and the means of enhancing it. Subsequently, and inevitably, the respiratory system has become a target of the multi-trillion-dollar health and wellness industry. Numerous commercial, respiratory-related interventions are now coupled to therapeutic and/or ergogenic claims that vary in their plausibility: from the reasonable to the absurd. Moreover, legitimate and illegitimate claims are often conflated in a wellness space that lacks regulation. The abundance of interventions, the range of potential therapeutic targets in the respiratory system, and the wealth of research that varies in quality, all confound the ability for health and exercise professionals to make informed risk-to-benefit assessments with their patients and clients. This review focuses on numerous commercial interventions that purport to improve respiratory health, including nasal dilators, nasal breathing, and systematized breathing interventions (such as pursed-lips breathing), respiratory muscle training, canned oxygen, nutritional supplements, and inhaled L-menthol. For each intervention we describe the premise, examine the plausibility, and systematically contrast commercial claims against the published literature. The overarching aim is to assist health and exercise professionals to distinguish science from pseudoscience and make pragmatic and safe risk-to-benefit decisions.
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.