ReviewCureus2025
Use of Incentive Spirometry to Prevent Acute Chest Syndrome (ACS) in Patients With Sickle Cell Disease (SCD): A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a genetic hematological disorder that causes the production of sickle-shaped red blood cells. These abnormal cells reduce the oxygen-carrying ability around the body and obstruct blood flow, potentially resulting in devastating complications such as acute chest syndrome (ACS). The objective of this systematic review is to assess whether incentive spirometry is effective in reducing the incidence of ACS in patients with SCD. This review searched databases, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) up to August 17, 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that used incentive spirometry in patients with SCD were included in the review. Inclusion criteria for this review include patients diagnosed with SCD who have received incentive spirometry, with outcomes compared against standard prevention for ACS or other alternative interventions aimed at preventing or managing lung pathology. Studies must report on at least one of the following outcomes: incidence of ACS, pulmonary function, hospital stay duration, hospitalization rates, or adverse effects. This study found that three RCTs (29 patients, 38 patients, and 20 patients with a total of 124 hospitalizations) were included in this review. Two studies compared incentive spirometry to standard care, while only one compared incentive spirometry to positive expiratory pressure (PEP). A meta-analysis was conducted between two studies, with one trial suggesting that incentive spirometry successfully reduced the incidence of ACS and the other trial suggesting that it could not successfully reduce it. A meta-analysis of both studies found that incentive spirometry did not successfully reduce the incidence of ACS in patients with SCD (RR=0.51; 95% CI (0.21, 1.33)). The quality of this evidence was very low, due to the wide confidence interval, high risk of bias, and substantial heterogeneity. This review concluded that incentive spirometry could not successfully reduce the incidence of ACS in patients with SCD. Limitations of the studies used included small sample sizes and heterogeneity between study populations (i.e., children vs. adults). Therefore, further research is required to assess this, including larger, well-designed RCTs to be conducted focusing on core outcome sets (COS).
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.