SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Effects of an incentive spirometer versus a threshold inspiratory muscle trainer on lung functions in Parkinson's disease patients: a randomized trial.

Sci Rep · 2023-02-13

DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-29534-8PMID: 36781936

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Randomized Controlled Trial; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Upper airway obstruction, reduced maximal expiratory and inspiratory flows, reduced lung volumes, abnormal ventilatory control, and diaphragmatic dyskinesias are reported in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). Inspiratory muscle training (IMT) has been reported to be effective in improving respiratory functions; however, no studies have compared the effects of the incentive spirometer (IS) with the threshold inspiratory muscle trainer (TIMT) in patients with PD. The study aimed to compare the effects of IS and TIMT on maximum inspiratory pressure (MIP), 6-min walk distance (6-MWD), forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), and peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) in patients with stage 1-3 according to the Hoehn and Yahr scale. 18 patients were randomly assigned to two groups, i.e., incentive spirometer (IS) and threshold inspiratory muscle trainer (TIMT) group. The IS group received IMT with volume-based IS, and the TIMT group received IMT with TIMT. MIP, 6-MWD, FVC, FEV1, and PEFR were measured before and after six weeks of training. In IS group: A significant increase (p  0.05) in FVC, FEV1, and PEFR. When the two groups were compared, a greater increase (p < 0.05) was observed in the MIP and 6-MWD in the TIMT group compared to IS group. IMT with IS or TIMT for six weeks effectively increased MIP and 6-MWD in patients with stage 1-3 (Hoehn and Yahr scale) of PD. No improvement was observed in FVC, FEV1, or PEFR with any of the techniques. TIMT is more effective than IS in improving MIP and 6-MWD.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.