Conectar
Dyspnea is a prevalent and profoundly distressing symptom. Fan therapy, a simple nonpharmacologic intervention, has shown potential in alleviating dyspnea. However, its effects remain unclear.
We aimed to update and expand the existing evidence on the effectiveness and perceptions of fan therapy in adults with dyspnea to inform clinical symptom management.
This review followed PRISMA 2020. A comprehensive literature search was performed across multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data and Chinese Scientific Journals Full-text Database, from inception through March 20, 2025. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Quantitative synthesis was performed using Review Manager software, version 5.3. Qualitative findings were synthesized narratively.
This review included 15 studies (623 participants). In meta-analysis, the overall effect on dyspnea severity was not statistically significant; however, post hoc subgroup analysis by outcome assessment timing showed a significant short-term reduction within 5–10 min after fan therapy (SMD = −0.41, 95% CI: [−0.70, −0.11], p = 0.007, I 2 = 32%). No significant differences were observed in physiological parameters, physical activity levels, self-efficacy, or caregiver-related outcomes. Furthermore, qualitative evidence indicated that patients, clinicians and caregivers generally expressed positive views toward fan therapy, considering it an effective and accessible nonpharmacological intervention.
Fan therapy may provide short-term relief of dyspnea in adults, with limited evidence of sustained benefit and no consistent effects on physiological or other related outcomes. Given its acceptability, low-cost and portability, it may be considered a practical adjunct for dyspnea management, although longer-term trials are needed.
Fan therapy can be used as an adjunct to disease-targeted treatments in the management of dyspnea, particularly in community nursing, low-cost and resource-limited settings.
Not applicable.
Skin temperature, including absolute temperature (at bony prominence areas under long-term compression) and relative temperature (the difference between bony prominence and adjacent control area), may serve as early warning indicators for PI. However, the optimal indicator remains unclear. This meta-analysis therefore synthesises evidence on their association with PI risk to identify the best indicator and evaluate its early-warning accuracy.
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
We included prospective cohort studies of adult patients investigating longitudinal associations between skin temperature and subsequent PI development. We pooled standardised mean difference (SMD) and odds ratios, complemented by summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve analysis. The overall quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE method.
We researched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), Wanfang and CNKI databases from inception to September 25, 2024.
After screening 1354 titles and abstracts, ten studies comprising 1742 participants were included in the final synthesis. No significant difference in absolute temperature (combined SMD) was found between the PI and non-PI groups (seven studies included). In addition, decreased relative temperature (< −0.1°C) was associated with a 16-fold increased likelihood of PI (95% CI 6.38–40.19, I 2 = 79.4%) (three studies included), with the SROC curve analysis showing an AUC of 0.776. According to GRADE, the evidentiary certainty was very low for AT and low for RT.
Relative temperature is significantly related to the risk of PI, supporting its role as a promising early warning indicator. Future studies should establish a standardised measurement protocol to facilitate its clinical application.
Monitoring skin temperature changes holds promise as a non-invasive tool for early warning of PI risk. However, the amount and quality of available evidence limit our confidence in these findings, underscoring the need for further research before a definitive conclusion can be drawn.
This study followed PRISMA guidelines.
No patient or public contribution.
PROSPERO CRD42024550099
FreshRSS 