Cited by 68Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchCancer survivorship and carePalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues

A randomised controlled trial of three or one breathing technique training sessions for breathlessness in people with malignant lung disease

Open access
Johnson, Miriam J, Kanaan, Mona, Richardson, Gerry, Nabb, Samantha, Torgerson, David, English, Anne, Barton, Rachael, Booth, Sara·2015·BMC Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: About 90 % of patients with intra-thoracic malignancy experience breathlessness. Breathing training is helpful, but it is unknown whether repeated sessions are needed. The present study aims to test whether three sessions are better than one for breathlessness in this population. METHODS: This is a multi-centre randomised controlled non-blinded parallel arm trial. Participants were allocated to three sessions or single (1:2 ratio) using central computer-generated block randomisation by an independent Trials Unit and stratified for centre. The setting was respiratory, oncology or palliative care clinics at eight UK centres. Inclusion criteria were people with intrathoracic cancer and refractory breathlessness, expected prognosis ≥3 months, and no prior experience of breathing training. The trial intervention was a complex breathlessness intervention (breathing training, anxiety management, relaxation, pacing, and prioritisation) delivered over three hour-long sessions at weekly intervals, or during a single hour-long session. The main primary outcome was worst breathlessness over the previous 24 hours ('worst'), by numerical rating scale (0 = none; 10 = worst imaginable). Our primary analysis was area under the curve (AUC) 'worst' from baseline to 4 weeks. All analyses were by intention to treat. RESULTS: Between April 2011 and October 2013, 156 consenting participants were randomised (52 three; 104 single). Overall, the 'worst' score reduced from 6.81 (SD, 1.89) to 5.84 (2.39). Primary analysis [n = 124 (79 %)], showed no between-arm difference in the AUC: three sessions 22.86 (7.12) vs single session 22.58 (7.10); P value = 0.83); mean difference 0.2, 95 % CIs (-2.31 to 2.97). Complete case analysis showed a non-significant reduction in QALYs with three sessions (mean difference -0.006, 95 % CIs -0.018 to 0.006). Sensitivity analyses found similar results. The probability of the single session being cost-effective (threshold value of £20,000 per QALY) was over 80 %. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence that three sessions conferred additional benefits, including cost-effectiveness, over one. A single session of breathing training seems appropriate and minimises patient burden. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry: ISRCTN; TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN49387307; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN49387307 ; registration date: 25/01/2011.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12916-015-0453-x

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Breathlessness services providing predominantly non-pharmacological approaches are effective, cost-effective, and improve distress from breathlessness, mastery, quality of life, and survival.

    “Such services provide a brief, cost-effective intervention that impacts positively on distress from breathlessness, mastery, quality of life, and even survival.”

    From The Breathing, Thinking, Functioning clinical model: a proposal to facilitate evidence-based breathlessness management in chronic respiratory disease (2017) · cites this paper as [27]

    The Background and Discussion report benefits from non-pharmacological breathlessness interventions, including improvements in distress and mastery. The Results find a single breathing-training session likely cost-effective compared with three sessions, not compared with no service. The paper does not show that a breathlessness service improves survival; its Discussion attributes improved survival to a separate early-palliative-care trial. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [9]Yates P, Hardy J, Kwun F, Brunelli V, Zhao I, Clavarino I. A randomised controlled trial of a nonpharmacological intervention for dyspnoea. [Abstract] Clinical Oncological Society of Australia (COSA) 38th Annual Scientific Meeting, Perth, Western Australia. Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology. Blackwell Publishing Asia, Australia 2011; 7:82
  2. [26]John OP Pervin LA John OP Big five trait taxonomy Handbook of Theory and Research 2001 2 New York, NY The Guilford Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Johnson, M. J., Kanaan, M., Richardson, G., Nabb, S., Torgerson, D., English, A., Barton, R., & Booth, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Hull (GB)
  • University of York (GB)
  • Humber Teaching NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Castle Hill Hospital (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Johnson, Miriam J
Venue
BMC Medicine
Published
2015-09-07
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
213-213
ISSN
1741-7015 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2130234534
Cited by
68
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1
FWCI
5.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository@Hull (Worktribe) (University of Hull) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Repository@Hull (Worktribe) (University of Hull) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (PB-PG-0609-19066)
  • University of Cambridge
  • Cambridge University Hospitals
  • University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Keywords
dyspnea, malignant lung disease, refractory breathlessness, anxiety reduction, relaxation, pacing, priority setting, quality-adjusted life years, cost-effectiveness, palliative care, cancer care, respiratory care, symptom management
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Breathing Exercises, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Dyspnea, Female, Humans, Lung Neoplasms, Male, Middle Aged, Palliative Care, Quality-Adjusted Life Years

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review