Trial reportChronic respiratory disease
Post COVID REspiratory mechanisms and the efficacy of a breathing exercise intervention for DYsregulated breathing (Remedy): A feasibility RCT study.
Trial report in Chronic respiratory disease. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Response to "Methodological considerations regarding the interpretation of feasibility outcomes in remote breathing interventions for dysregulated breathing following COVID-19".Chronic respiratory diseaseArticle
- Methodological considerations regarding the interpretation of feasibility outcomes in remote breathing interventions for dysregulated breathing following COVID-19.Chronic respiratory diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BackgroundDysregulated breathing is a major cause of persisting breathlessness for many people following acute COVID-19 illness. There is little evidence to support the use of breathing interventions within this population.MethodsA feasibility study was conducted to investigate the potential role of supervised, remote online yogic breathing as an intervention, compared to usual care. The intervention was a six-week group programme, in which they were encouraged to attend bi-weekly. Primary outcomes of attendance, completion and acceptability were recorded and a survey following the intervention. Secondary measures of breathlessness and physical function were collected.ResultsOf 122 people invited who had reported dysregulated breathing at the time of clinical consult, 40 consented and 34 were randomised (Intervention n=17, usual care n=17), 33 had initial assessment (n=16 and n=17) and with post-intervention outcomes available in n=13 and n=14, respectively. Of the 13 in the intervention arm, 5 people completed >75% of sessions and the post intervention assessment. The median number of sessions attended per participant was 7. No safety issues were recorded. The survey (n=13) of the actual intervention highlighted it was well received but there was limited options for attending. Although some breathlessness measures improved in the people receiving the intervention, there was no significant difference when comparing the intervention to usual care arms.ConclusionsThe feasibility of the study was limited in this select population of people after COVID-19 with dysregulated breathing. The intervention was well received, but attendance at all the sessions was challenged by the limited options for the sessions.
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.