ArticleCoDAS2024
Towards a better diagnosis of mouth breathing: validity and reliability of a protocol for assessing the awake breathing pattern in preschool children.
Article in CoDAS, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe Awake Breathing Pattern Assessment (ABPA) is a prototypical clinical grid recently designed through an international consensus of Speech and Language Pathologists (SLPs) to categorize the awake and habitual breathing pattern during the orofacial myofunctional assessment. This cross-sectional study aims to explore the psychometric properties of the ABPA in a preschool population.
methods133 children from 2;11 to 6 years old were assessed with the ABPA. The percentage of time spent breathing through the mouth was objectively measured by a CO2 sensor and used as a baseline measurement. We first performed a multivariate Latent Profile Analysis based on the CO2 measurement and a parental questionnaire to define the number of categories that best characterize the breathing pattern. Subsequently, we assessed the intra- and inter-rater reliability, internal consistency criterion validity, construct validity and sensitivity and specificity.
resultsThe awake breathing pattern can best be described by two groups: nasal and mouth breathing. The ABPA, initially designed in three groups, was adjusted accordingly. This final version showed excellent intra-rater and inter-rater reliability. There was a significant correlation between the ABPA and the CO2 measurement. The ABPA showed a fair sensitivity and a good specificity.
conclusionThe reference tool based on CO2 data was used in children for the first time and was found to be reliable. The ABPA is a suitable tool for SLPs to confirm the diagnosis of mouth breathing in preschool children if more sensitive screening tools, like parental questionnaires, are used beforehand.
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.