Comparison of two instructions for deep breathing exercise: non-specific and diaphragmatic breathing.
Masami Yokogawa, Tomoyo Kurebayashi, Toshikazu Ichimura and 3 others
PMID 29706718WHAT IT FOUND
Simple 'slow and deep' instructions produced similar or better breathing measures than diaphragmatic instructions in healthy young adults, and more participants found them comfortable.
Key findings
01Ten of the fifteen men and thirteen of the fifteen women said non-specific deep breathing was more comfortable than diaphragmatic breathing.
02For women, the non-specific instruction produced a greater decrease in breathing rate and greater increases in air per breath and time spent exhaling than the diaphragmatic instruction.
03For men, the instructions produced similar effects during deep breathing; oxygen uptake differed only during natural breathing, not during deep breathing.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The participants were healthy young adults, not the middle-aged or older patients who usually receive perioperative breathing exercises. The order was fixed, with non-specific breathing before diaphragmatic breathing, so the study did not randomise instruction order. Measurements were made during a short exercise period, not over repeated sessions or longer practice. Breathing was measured only while sitting with back support, not in positions such as supine that may occur after surgery. The study measured breathing and heart-rate indices, not postoperative pulmonary complications or clinical recovery.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not use these results to change postoperative breathing instructions. The study tested healthy young adults for a short time, not patients recovering from surgery.