↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Breathing exercises for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
117 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
470 Mendeley
Title
Breathing exercises for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008250.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne E Holland, Catherine J Hill, Alice Y Jones, Christine F McDonald

Abstract

Breathing exercises for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) aim to alter respiratory muscle recruitment, improve respiratory muscle performance and reduce dyspnoea. Although some studies have reported positive short-term physiological effects of breathing exercises in people with COPD, their effects on dyspnoea, exercise capacity and well being are unclear. To determine whether breathing exercises in people with COPD have beneficial effects on dyspnoea, exercise capacity and health-related quality of life compared to no breathing exercises in people with COPD; and to determine whether there are any adverse effects of breathing exercises in people with COPD. The Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials and the PEDro database were searched from inception to October 2011. We included randomised parallel trials that compared breathing exercises to no breathing exercises or another intervention in people with COPD. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Primary outcomes were dyspnoea, exercise capacity and health-related quality of life; secondary outcomes were gas exchange, breathing pattern and adverse events. To determine whether effects varied according to the treatment used, we assessed each breathing technique separately. Sixteen studies involving 1233 participants with mean forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)) 30% to 51% predicted were included. There was a significant improvement in six-minute walk distance after three months of yoga involving pranayama timed breathing techniques (mean difference to control 45 metres, 95% confidence interval 29 to 61 metres; two studies; 74 participants), with similar improvements in single studies of pursed lip breathing (mean 50 metres; 60 participants) and diaphragmatic breathing (mean 35 metres; 30 participants). Effects on dyspnoea and health-related quality of life were inconsistent across trials. Addition of computerised ventilation feedback to exercise training did not provide additional improvement in dyspnoea-related quality of life (standardised mean difference -0.03; 95% CI -0.43 to 0.49; two studies; 73 participants) and ventilation feedback alone was less effective than exercise training alone for improving exercise endurance (mean difference -15.4 minutes; 95% CI -28.1 to -2.7 minutes; one study; 32 participants). No significant adverse effects were reported. Few studies reported details of allocation concealment, assessor blinding or intention-to-treat analysis. Breathing exercises over four to 15 weeks improve functional exercise capacity in people with COPD compared to no intervention; however, there are no consistent effects on dyspnoea or health-related quality of life. Outcomes were similar across all the breathing exercises examined. Treatment effects for patient-reported outcomes may have been overestimated owing to lack of blinding. Breathing exercises may be useful to improve exercise tolerance in selected individuals with COPD who are unable to undertake exercise training; however, these data do not suggest a widespread role for breathing exercises in the comprehensive management of people with COPD.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 470 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 464 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 98 21%
Student > Bachelor 81 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 9%
Researcher 30 6%
Student > Postgraduate 25 5%
Other 81 17%
Unknown 113 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 148 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 87 19%
Psychology 17 4%
Sports and Recreations 16 3%
Social Sciences 16 3%
Other 58 12%
Unknown 128 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 June 2021.
All research outputs
#784,187
of 20,797,992 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,796
of 12,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,936
of 174,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,797,992 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,112 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 174,785 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.