Nasal dilator and physiological parameters associated to running performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Nasal dilators were created to expand the nasal valve area. The aim of this systematic review was to verify physiological parameters associated to running performance with the use of nasal dilators. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021225795). According to the PICOS framework studies were...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of sports sciences 2022-10, Vol.40 (20), p.2315-2326
Main Authors: Karla Silva Pereira Gomes, Suellen, Malaguti, Carla, Elias Filho, José, Oliveira Caetano, Raphael, Vieira da Silva, Christiano, Medina Dutra de Oliveira, Túlio, Hespanhol, Luiz, Felício, Diogo Carvalho
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Athletic Performance - physiology
Dilatation - instrumentation
external nasal dilator
Humans
Meta-analysis
Nasal dilator
nasal resistance
nasal valve
Nose
Physiology
Placebos
Population studies
running
Running - physiology
Systematic review
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Nasal dilators were created to expand the nasal valve area. The aim of this systematic review was to verify physiological parameters associated to running performance with the use of nasal dilators. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021225795). According to the PICOS framework studies were included: Population: healthy subjects; Intervention: nasal dilators; Comparison: control group, placebo, minimal intervention, health education or other intervention; Outcomes: cardiorespiratory parameters and subjective perceptions; Study: randomized controlled trials, repeated measures or within-subjects design. The databases searched were MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, PEDro and Scopus. The descriptors "Running", "Nasal Dilator", "Randomized Controlled Trial", and synonyms were used. The risk of bias was assessed using the PEDro scale. Random effects Der Simonian and Laird model were used. The assessment of the certainty of the evidence was carried out using the GRADE approach. Eleven articles were included. There was a difference in favour of the nasal dilator when compared to placebo for maximal oxygen uptake and rating of perceived exertion. The certainty of the evidence was very low. Future studies will probably have an impact on estimation of the effect.
ISSN:0264-0414
1466-447X
DOI:10.1080/02640414.2022.2151752