ArticlePloS one2025
Nasal vs. oral BREATHing WIn Strategies in healthy individuals during cardiorespiratory Exercise testing (BreathWISE).
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.
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.
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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.