Trial reportPloS one2025
Comparison of respiratory muscle activities and cardiovascular function during different breathing types in healthy adults: Costal breathing, flow incentive spirometry, and volume incentive spirometry.
Trial report 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVarious breathing exercises are used to enhance lung function. However, many patients have reported experiencing breathlessness and an increased work of breathing during their use, but evidence supporting this is limited. This study aimed to compare respiratory muscle activity and cardiovascular function during different breathing exercises.
methodsForty-five healthy adults participated in this study. They were randomly assigned in a crossover design involving three breathing techniques: flow incentive spirometry, volume incentive spirometry, and costal breathing exercises with sustained maximal inspiration. Respiratory muscle activity (sternocleidomastoid, superior external intercostal, and inferior external intercostal) and cardiovascular function were assessed during each technique at baseline and during the 3rd, 6th, and 9th breaths.
resultsSternocleidomastoid, superior external intercostal, and inferior external intercostal were more activated during flow incentive spirometry and volume incentive spirometry than during costal breathing exercises with sustained maximal inspiration. During flow incentive spirometry, stroke volume and heart rate significantly increased, while cardiac output significantly decreased compared to volume incentive spirometry and costal breathing exercises with sustained maximal inspiration throughout the 10 breathing cycles.
conclusionFlow incentive spirometry and volume incentive spirometry elicited greater accessory muscle activity than costal breathing exercises with sustained maximal inspiration. Inferior external intercostal was activated in all breathing techniques. In particular, flow incentive spirometry stimulated changes in cardiovascular function more than volume incentive spirometry and costal breathing exercises with sustained maximal inspiration. Therefore, volume incentive spirometry and costal breathing exercises with sustained maximal inspiration are recommended to minimize breathing effort and cardiovascular instability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.