RETRACTED: Effects of breathing exercise techniques on the pain and anxiety of burn patients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This systematic review and meta‐analysis aim to summarise the effect of breathing exercise techniques (BET) on the pain and anxiety of burn patients during burn care. A systematic search was performed on international electronic databases such as Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science, as well as on Iranian electronic databases such as Iranmedex and Scientific Information Database (SID) with keywords extracted from Medical Subject Headings such as ‘Burns’, ‘Bandages’, ‘Pain’, ‘Pain management’, ‘Anxiety’, ‘Breathing’, and ‘Breathing exercise’, which were performed from the earliest to 4 April 2022. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist assessed the quality of randomised control trials (RCTs) and quasi‐experimental studies. The current meta‐analysis was performed using STATA V.14.0 software. A 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to determine significance levels. Random effect model was used to calculate the weighted mean difference (WMD). A total of 469 burn patients participated in 10 studies. Exactly 58.60% of burn patients were male, and the number of people in the intervention and control groups was equal. The mean age of burn patients was 32.84 (SD = 10.39). Exactly 78.05% of patients had second‐degree burns. The mean study duration was 19 weeks. Results of analysis of RCT studies showed BET decreased insignificantly pain severity (WMD: −1.17, 95%CI: −2.54 to 0.21, Z = 1.66, P = .096, I2:97.1%) in the intervention group than control group. However, the results of non‐RCTs studies indicated BET significantly decreased pain (WMD: −1.38, 95%CI: −2.16 to −0.61, Z = 3.49, P < .001, I2:88.4%) and anxiety (WMD: −4.91, 95%CI: −9.35 to −0.47, Z = 2.71, P = .03 0.001, I2:88.4%) in the intervention group than control group. Overall, the results of RCTs found BET intervention decreased pain in the intervention group when compared with the control group; however, it was statistically insignificant. Also, results of non‐RCT studies showed intervention of BET significantly decreased pain and anxiety in burns patients. More RCTs studies are required for better judgement of the effectiveness of BET intervention in clinical settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".