Inspiratory versus expiratory incentive spirometry: A randomised control trial study protocol.
Eniola O Awolola, Sonil S Maharaj
PMID 37928651WHAT IT FOUND
This paper describes the plan for a trial comparing two breathing exercises, but no patients have been treated and no results are reported.
It cannot change your practice because it does not yet tell us whether inspiratory or expiratory incentive spirometry works better.
Key findings
01The study is a protocol for a future randomised trial, not a report of completed research.
02The planned intervention is a 12-week comparison of inspiratory incentive spirometry and expiratory incentive spirometry against a placebo control.
STILL TO COME
How it was done
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
No data has been collected; this is a description of what the researchers intend to do, not what they did. The planned sample size is small (51 participants total), which may limit the ability to detect differences between the three groups if the actual effect is smaller than anticipated. The placebo control involves a musculoskeletal assessment rather than a sham breathing exercise, which may not fully control for the physical activity and attention received by the intervention groups. The study excludes patients on supplemental oxygen, those with cardiac conditions, and those with asthma, so the results (if they ever come) will not apply to these common populations.
Declared interests
The text does not report specific funding sources or author conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret this paper as evidence that either inspiratory or expiratory incentive spirometry is effective or superior. No patients have been treated, and no outcomes have been measured.