Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This scoping review evaluates incentive inspirometer effects on outcomes in cardiopulmonary rehabilitation, indicating its significance across various settings.
What is the available evidence on the use of incentive inspirometer in cardiopulmonary rehabilitation among adult and pediatric populations across inpatient, postoperative, outpatient, and extramural settings? sub-questions In which specific cardiopulmonary conditions have incentive inspirometer been used? Which clinical outcomes have been evaluated and how have they been reported when incentive inspirometer is used in cardiopulmonary rehabilitation? What complications have been reported when incentive inspirometer is applied in cardiopulmonary rehabilitation? Inclusion criteria Participants This review will consider studies that include individuals aged 3 years and older, of any sex, who require the use of incentive inspirometer in cardiopulmonary rehabilitation (e.g., post-surgical patients, as well as those with respiratory or cardiac conditions). Concept This review will consider studies that explore the use of incentive inspirometer in cardiopulmonary rehabilitation. Clinical outcomes of interest will include inspiratory muscle strength, lung function, oxygenation indices, oxygen therapy requirements, diaphragmatic mobility, length of hospital stay, and quality of life. In addition, complications such as infections, atelectasis, and other adverse events associated with the use of the incentive spirometer will also be considered. Context This review will consider studies conducted in any care setting, including inpatient, postoperative, outpatient, and extramural, with no restrictions regarding geographic location, type of healthcare system, or cultural context. Types of sources This scoping review will consider quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods study designs and systematic reviews for inclusion. Methods The proposed scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews 1, and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chaverra et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: