Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40668801›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Nasal vs. oral BREATHing WIn Strategies in healthy individuals during cardiorespiratory Exercise testing (BreathWISE).

Massimo Mapelli, Elisabetta Salvioni, Irene Mattavelli, Giulia Grilli, Gabriele Zerboni, Alessandro Nava, Nicolò Capra, Arianna Galotta, Matteo Biroli, Gaia Bellini and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Massimo MapelliCentro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9985-7407
Elisabetta SalvioniCentro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Irene MattavelliCentro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Giulia GrilliCentro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2002-9153
Gabriele ZerboniCentro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-4059-6070
Alessandro NavaCentro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Nicolò CapraCentro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1974-2015
Arianna GalottaCentro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9561-9436
Matteo BiroliCentro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3373-7741
Gaia BelliniCentro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Mattia Dall'AstaCentro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Elisabetta PasiniCentro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Antonio De PaolaCentro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Ludovica TorzoliniCentro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Nicola ManiCentro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Sebastiano TurriCentro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Jeness CampodonicoCentro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Piergiuseppe AgostoniCentro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNasal and oral exclusive breathing modes have benefits and drawbacks during submaximal exercise. It is less known whether these responses would extend to anaerobic work performed at high intensity. The purpose of this study is to find the most efficient mode of breathing during different phases of a maximal exercise at cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET).

methodsHealthy subjects were recruited to perform 4 maximal CPETs (standard conditions (STD), exclusively nasal breathing (eNAS), exclusively oral breathing (eOR), partial nasal breathing (pNAS) with just one blocked nostril) using the same ramp protocol on an electronically braked cycle ergometer. Before the exercise a standard spirometry was executed in the same order. Twelve healthy subjects (28.6 ± 5.2 y, 50% males) performed the 4 CPETs within one month. Variables were analysed at rest, at anaerobic threshold (AT), at intermediate exercise steps, and at peak.

resultsCompared to STD, eOR, and pNAS conditions, eNAS was associated with a significant lower peakVO2, peakVCO2, peak ventilation, respiratory rate, VE/VCO2 slope, respiratory exchange ratio, and workload (p < 0.05 for all). Moreover, peak inspiration and peak expiration time were augmented, while forced expiratory volume and vital capacity at rest were reduced. Only minor differences were detected at rest or AT. eNAS breathing Borg scale was higher in all phases of the exercise.

conclusionsIn young healthy subjects, an exclusively nasal respiration induces significant impairment on peak exercise capacity at CPET due to ventilatory limitation, with only minor effects on metabolic parameters at rest and in submaximal effort.

Indexed as

ExerciseExercise TestNoseRespirationAdultAnaerobic ThresholdFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansMaleOxygen ConsumptionSpirometryYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40668801
PMCPMC12266398

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.