ArticleERJ open research2026
Airflow for reducing breathlessness in people with serious respiratory illness: a systematic review.
Article in ERJ open research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Increased airflow is reported as helpful in reducing the sensation of breathlessness. This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of airflow on breathlessness (primary outcome, measured using a validated tool at rest or during exercise) and health-related quality of life (secondary outcome) in people with serious respiratory illness. Methods: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in August 2022 updated in May 2025. Results: 10 studies (11 reports) were identified involving 413 participants with COPD, interstitial lung disease, bronchiectasis and asthma. A (handheld) fan, a pedestal fan and the PneumoCool device were tested. Settings included laboratory (one study), hospital (two studies), during exercise tests (three studies) or daily life settings (four studies). The primary outcomes were measured between 5 min after fan use and on day 60 after 2 months of fan use in everyday life. Risk of bias was high in all studies. Due to heterogeneity and small sample sizes, meta-analyses were not feasible. Overall, the evidence was mixed with an overall beneficial effect of fan use in studies assessing the acute effects compared to assessment of long-term effects of fan use after 14-60 days. Health-related quality of life was only reported in one study, with no improvement. Conclusion: The results suggest a beneficial effect of a (handheld) fan for the relief of breathlessness in people with serious respiratory illness. A fan could be an additional treatment option in the self-management of breathlessness.
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.