Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study I-LIFE-111 standard review

Slow-breathing devices for high blood pressure

Efficacy of device-guided breathing for hypertension in blinded, randomized, active-controlled trials: a meta-analysis of individual patient data.

Overview

Landman GW et al.. JAMA Intern Med 2014 · PMID 25222103 · DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.4336

When compared fairly with sham devices or music, slow-breathing devices did not lower blood pressure.

Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high

Study explained simply

What did the researchers want to find out?: Test DGB for hypertension.
How was the study done?: IPD meta-analysis of blinded trials.
How many people, animals or samples were studied?: 3 trials with IPD.
What was actually found?: No BP reduction.
How large was the observed effect?: SBP +2.2 mmHg (-2.7 to 7.0) favouring control.
What do the results mean in everyday life?: Breathing exercises relax, but do not replace blood pressure treatment.
What are the study's limitations?: Few trials.
What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?: Limits 'beneficial for health' to well-being.
Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?: Applies; same physiology.
What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?: Effects of other breathing techniques.

Authors: Landman GW et al.
Journal: JAMA Intern Med
Year: 2014
Identifier: PMID 25222103 DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.4336
Verification: verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-26; Crossref update-to/updated-by check
Retracted: no
Corrections: none
Extent checked: abstract only
Conflicts of interest and funding: not stated in abstract

Does device-guided slow breathing lower blood pressure when compared with sham or music?

Study design: Meta-analysis – Individual patient data meta-analysis of blinded RCTs with active control
Population: Adults with hypertension
Country: International
Period: not stated in abstract
Sample size: 5 eligible studies; IPD from 3
Inclusion and exclusion criteria: not stated in abstract

Results: Office systolic BP 2.2 mmHg (95% CI -2.7 to 7.0) in favour of control; diastolic 0.2 mmHg (-2.8 to 3.1) in favour of DGB; no significant effect.
Absolute risks: not reported
Authors' conclusion: DGB did not significantly lower office blood pressure compared with sham or music; no recommendation for hypertension treatment.

Null result with CI excluding large benefits; see stats/I-LIFE-111_breathing.py.

Limits health claims: when properly controlled, slow breathing did not lower blood pressure.

Universal biology; applies in Europe and Egypt.

Contradicts disease-treatment claims for breathing; not the relaxation part.

Multidimensional assessment
Multidimensional assessment
Authenticity of the source	verified
Methodological quality	high
Risk of bias	some concerns
Precision of results	moderate
Directness	direct
Reproducibility	partly replicated
Consistency with the overall evidence	consistent
Regional transferability	high
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)	not applicable

Deep (slow) breathing is beneficial for health. – Studies contradicting or limiting the claim