Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2026
Improving Nausea Through Breathing Interventions: A Trial of Written Instructions for Diaphragmatic Breathing Versus a Biofeedback Device.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chakraborty Subhankar
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Nausea is a distressing symptom affecting ∼7% of the population. Pharmacologic options are limited and often ineffective for chronic nausea. Nonpharmacologic strategies, such as breathing exercises, have shown promise in reducing stress and GI symptoms, but their role in chronic nausea has not been studied. This study addresses this knowledge gap by comparing written diaphragmatic breathing (DB) instructions with a biofeedback device (CalmiGo) for their effect on nausea severity.
METHODS: In a prospective study, we investigated the effects of breathing exercises using either written instructions for DB or a biofeedback respiratory practice device (CalmiGo) on self-reported severity of nausea. Participants were randomized to either intervention and asked to practice the exercises three times daily for 3 min each time for 6 Weeks. Nausea was evaluated at baseline and every week for 7 Weeks via online self-reported surveys.
RESULTS: A total of 85 adults with nausea (n = 44, 51.7% severe nausea) were randomized to either DB (n = 36) or CalmiGo (n = 49). There was no difference between the two groups at baseline in demographic features, anxiety, depression, or nausea severity. Nausea improved at all-time points in both groups with a medium to large effect size. However, after applying false discovery rate correction, the improvement remained significant for DB only at weeks one to three and borderline significant at weeks four to five and Week 7. There was no difference in response rates between the two groups. Age, body mass index, baseline anxiety, and whether one was diabetic were predictive of improvement in nausea after 4 Weeks.
CONCLUSION: In a pilot study, we observed that brief breathing exercises improve nausea. Breathing exercises may be useful as a nonpharmacologic option in the management of nausea, although larger trials are needed to confirm these findings.
METHODS: In a prospective study, we investigated the effects of breathing exercises using either written instructions for DB or a biofeedback respiratory practice device (CalmiGo) on self-reported severity of nausea. Participants were randomized to either intervention and asked to practice the exercises three times daily for 3 min each time for 6 Weeks. Nausea was evaluated at baseline and every week for 7 Weeks via online self-reported surveys.
RESULTS: A total of 85 adults with nausea (n = 44, 51.7% severe nausea) were randomized to either DB (n = 36) or CalmiGo (n = 49). There was no difference between the two groups at baseline in demographic features, anxiety, depression, or nausea severity. Nausea improved at all-time points in both groups with a medium to large effect size. However, after applying false discovery rate correction, the improvement remained significant for DB only at weeks one to three and borderline significant at weeks four to five and Week 7. There was no difference in response rates between the two groups. Age, body mass index, baseline anxiety, and whether one was diabetic were predictive of improvement in nausea after 4 Weeks.
CONCLUSION: In a pilot study, we observed that brief breathing exercises improve nausea. Breathing exercises may be useful as a nonpharmacologic option in the management of nausea, although larger trials are needed to confirm these findings.