Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36917254›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of applied physiology2023

Distinguishing science from pseudoscience in commercial respiratory interventions: an evidence-based guide for health and exercise professionals.

Camilla R Illidi, Lee M Romer, Michael A Johnson, Neil C Williams, Harry B Rossiter, Richard Casaburi, Nicholas B Tiller

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Camilla R IllidiClinical Exercise and Respiratory Physiology Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education, Faculty of Education, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Lee M RomerDivision of Sport, Health and Exercise Sciences, College of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UK.
Michael A JohnsonExercise and Health Research Group, Sport, Health and Performance Enhancement (SHAPE) Research Centre, School of Science and Technology, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, UK.
Neil C WilliamsExercise and Health Research Group, Sport, Health and Performance Enhancement (SHAPE) Research Centre, School of Science and Technology, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, UK.
Harry B RossiterInstitute of Respiratory Medicine and Exercise Physiology, Division of Respiratory and Critical Care Physiology and Medicine, The Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, 1124 W. Carson Street, CDCRC Building, Torrance, CA, 90502, USA.
Richard CasaburiInstitute of Respiratory Medicine and Exercise Physiology, Division of Respiratory and Critical Care Physiology and Medicine, The Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, 1124 W. Carson Street, CDCRC Building, Torrance, CA, 90502, USA.
Nicholas B TillerInstitute of Respiratory Medicine and Exercise Physiology, Division of Respiratory and Critical Care Physiology and Medicine, The Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, 1124 W. Carson Street, CDCRC Building, Torrance, CA, 90502, USA. nicholas.tiller@lundquist.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8429-658X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

COVID-19Pulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveBreathing ExercisesHumansPandemicsPseudoscienceAsthmaCOPDDiseaseExerciseLung functionNutritionPulmonary

Identifiers

PMID36917254
PMCPMC10013266

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.