ArticleCureus2026
A Comparative Study of Pulmonary Function Tests in Recreational Swimmers, Recreational Runners, and Sedentary Healthy Male Adults.
Article in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRegular aerobic exercise is associated with variations in pulmonary function through adaptations in respiratory muscles, lung volumes, and ventilatory efficiency. Swimming and running are commonly practiced aerobic activities that show differences in their physiological and mechanical characteristics related to respiration. However, limited data are available comparing pulmonary function among recreational swimmers, recreational runners, and sedentary individuals within a narrow age group.
objectivesTo compare pulmonary function tests among recreational swimmers, recreational runners, and sedentary healthy male adults aged 18-25 years. METHODOLOGY: This cross-sectional comparative study included healthy male participants aged 18-25 years, divided into three groups: recreational swimmers, recreational runners, and sedentary controls. Participants in the swimming and running groups reported engaging in their respective activities for approximately one hour per session, four to five times per week. Detailed assessment of training intensity, swimming stroke type, running pace, and environmental conditions was not performed. Pulmonary function tests, including forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁), peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), and maximal voluntary ventilation (MVV), were measured using standard spirometric techniques. Data were analyzed using appropriate statistical tests, and a
resultsPulmonary function parameters were significantly higher in recreational swimmers and recreational runners compared to sedentary controls. Recreational swimmers demonstrated the highest values of FVC, FEV₁, PEFR, and MVV, followed by recreational runners, while sedentary participants exhibited the lowest values. The differences observed among the three groups were statistically significant.
conclusionsRegular participation in recreational swimming and running shows a positive association with improved pulmonary function compared to a sedentary lifestyle in healthy young adult males. Recreational swimming demonstrates a stronger relationship with higher pulmonary function values than running, possibly related to the unique respiratory demands associated with water immersion and controlled breathing patterns.
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.