Does the external nasal dilator strip help in sports activity? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Nasal Injuries and Issues in Athletes

ABSTRACT

Nasal injuries and issues are widespread in athletic populations and can adversely affect training, performance, and overall well-being. Causes can typically be understood as cellular (allergic, nonallergic, and infectious rhinitis) or structural (static vs dynamic obstruction, trauma), and diagnosis and management differ accordingly. Upper respiratory tract infections, a subtype of infectious rhinitis, remain the most common illnesses among athletes. Here, the authors review the research surrounding the complex relationship between exercise, immunology, and susceptibility to infection. Furthermore, the authors provide an updated understanding of the current literature surrounding rhinitis and nasal trauma management and synthesize practical treatment considerations for providers caring for athletes at all levels.

Distinguishing science from pseudoscience in commercial respiratory interventions: an evidence-based guide for health and exercise professionals

Respiratory function has become a global health priority. Not only is chronic respiratory disease a leading cause of worldwide morbidity and mortality, but the COVID-19 pandemic has heightened attention on respiratory health and the means of enhancing it. Subsequently, and inevitably, the respiratory system has become a target of the multi-trillion-dollar health and wellness industry. Numerous commercial, respiratory-related interventions are now coupled to therapeutic and/or ergogenic claims that vary in their plausibility: from the reasonable to the absurd. Moreover, legitimate and illegitimate claims are often conflated in a wellness space that lacks regulation. The abundance of interventions, the range of potential therapeutic targets in the respiratory system, and the wealth of research that varies in quality, all confound the ability for health and exercise professionals to make informed risk-to-benefit assessments with their patients and clients. This review focuses on numerous commercial interventions that purport to improve respiratory health, including nasal dilators, nasal breathing, and systematized breathing interventions (such as pursed-lips breathing), respiratory muscle training, canned oxygen, nutritional supplements, and inhaled L-menthol. For each intervention we describe the premise, examine the plausibility, and systematically contrast commercial claims against the published literature. The overarching aim is to assist health and exercise professionals to distinguish science from pseudoscience and make pragmatic and safe risk-to-benefit decisions.

Human performance augmentation: the importance of integrative physiological quantification

In recent years, there has been an explosion of new approaches (technological, methodological, pharmacological, etc.) designed to improve physical performance for athletes, the military and in other applications. The goal of the present discussion is to review and quantify several ways in which physiology can provide important insights about which tools may lead to improved performance (and may therefore be worth resource investment) and which tools are less likely to provide meaningful enhancement. To address these objectives, we review examples of technological solutions/approaches in terms of the magnitude of their potential (or actual) influences: transformational, moderate, ineffective or undetermined. As one example, if there were a technology which significantly increased arterial oxygen partial pressure by 10%, this would be relatively meaningless in healthy people resting at sea level, where it would have a minimal effect on arterial oxygen content. However, there might be specific situations where such an effect would be very helpful, including at high altitude or in some patient populations. We discuss the importance of quantitative evaluation of putative approaches to performance enhancement and highlight the important role of integrative physiologists in the development and critical appraisal of these approaches.

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 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.