ReviewSleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung2026
Measuring adult breathing pattern: devices, outcomes, and evidence-a scoping review.
Review in Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo map instruments and protocols used to assess adult breathing pattern (BP), describe the outcomes they yield, appraise reported measurement properties, and identify whether any single modality is "clinically ready." The review asks which instruments and protocols quantify adult BP, which outcomes are reported (e.g., rate, amplitude, I:E ratio, thoracoabdominal mobility), and what evidence exists for reliability, sensitivity, or specificity.
methodsA scoping review, guided by Joanna Briggs Institute methods and reported per PRISMA-ScR, was undertaken. Searches in Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed were run to 27 Aug 2024 and updated on 21 Aug 2025 with identical strategies. Five reviewers screened records in three stages against predefined eligibility criteria (adult human samples; instrumented BP assessment). Data were charted for population, device and sampling, reference standards, tasks, outcomes, and clinimetric reporting. Thirty-one studies met eligibility.
resultsEvidence (1994-2025; 31 studies) clusters into contact and contactless families: optical/vision and motion capture, respiratory inductance plethysmography and other belts/pressure arrays, wearable inertial sensors, radar, and depth/thermal cameras. Outcomes concentrate on respiratory rate, tidal/volume proxies, and thoraco-abdominal contributions/coordination; fewer studies report event timing, displacement, or phase/asynchrony. Validation is chiefly against spirometry/pneumotachography; agreement for respiratory rate is generally high, while absolute volume agreement varies with calibration and posture. Reliability indices and diagnostic metrics are inconsistently reported. Most samples are small and posture-bound (laboratory or seated/supine), with heterogeneous preprocessing and reference-frame conventions limiting comparability.
conclusionMultiple modalities can quantify BP, but no single instrument currently satisfies validity, reliability, responsiveness, interpretability, feasibility, and equity across settings. Near-term use is strongest for respiratory-rate and trend-level expansion under controlled conditions. Progress depends on standardized reference frames for wearables, transparent breath-cycle definitions, cross-instrument calibration against common protocols, and larger real-world studies with systematic reporting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42862511What 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.