Trial reportBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Effects of the Buteyko breathing technique on sleep quality, fatigue, and oxygen saturation in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAcute coronary syndrome is frequently accompanied by sleep disturbance, fatigue, and hypoxemia; this study aimed to evaluate the effects of Buteyko breathing on these clinical outcomes.
methodsThis randomized triple-blind clinical trial was conducted in two Iranian hospitals among 92 adults with acute coronary syndrome. Participants were randomly assigned to Buteyko breathing or diaphragmatic breathing for six weeks alongside routine care. Primary outcomes included sleep quality (PSQI), fatigue (MFI-20), and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂), measured at baseline and post-intervention. Between- and within-group comparisons were performed using t-tests with effect-size estimation. ANCOVA was conducted to adjust for baseline characteristics.
resultsNinety patients were randomized equally to intervention and control groups with comparable baseline characteristics. Both groups demonstrated significant within-group improvements in PSQI (intervention - 0.82, control - 1.16), MFI-20 fatigue scores (- 2.44 vs. - 3.96), and SpO₂ (+ 0.40 vs. + 0.42; all p < 0.05). However, post-intervention between-group comparisons revealed no significant differences for PSQI (MD = - 0.36, 95% CI - 1.14 to 0.43; p = 0.37), fatigue (MD = 0.40, - 3.47 to 4.27; p = 0.84), or SpO₂ (MD = 0.32, - 0.15 to 0.80; p = 0.18). Effect sizes were uniformly small (Cohen's d ≤ 0.28). ANCOVA showed no group difference in fatigue (F(1,87) = 0.50, p = 0.483); baseline fatigue significant; R²=0.27, η²=0.006.
conclusionAlthough modest improvements occurred in sleep, fatigue, and oxygenation, changes were clinically insignificant with no between-group differences; thus, the intervention cannot be recommended over standard evidence-based care.
trial registrationIRCT20250607066101N1, Date: 06.15.2025.
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.