[Retracted] Clinical Observation of the Effect of Nasal Breathing on Nonanalgesic and Sedative Gastroscopy

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the safety, tolerance, and comfort of the subjects in gastroscopy by observing and comparing the effect of gastroscopy under two different breathing modes: nasal breathing and nasal inspiration and oral expiration. A total of 60 subjects who underwent routine gastroscopy in the hospital from January 2021 to June 2021 were selected as the research subjects. According to the willingness of the subjects, they were divided into a nasal breathing group and a nasal inspiration and oral expiration group. The differences in vital signs, adverse reactions, and visual analog scale (VAS) scores were compared between the two groups. There were no significant differences in mean arterial pressure, heart rate, and blood oxygen saturation between the two groups before, during, and after the examination ( P > 0.05 ). The nasal breathing group had fewer adverse reactions such as nausea, cough, belching, and restlessness than the nasal inspiration and oral expiration group, and the difference was statistically significant ( P < 0.01 ). VAS score of the nasal breathing group was lower than that of the nasal inspiration and oral expiration group, and the difference was statistically significant ( P < 0.01 ). Subjects are more tolerant to nasal breathing mode, which causes fewer adverse reactions, less pain, and more comfort and is more worthy to be popularized in primary hospitals.

Retracted: Clinical Observation of the Effect of Nasal Breathing on Nonanalgesic and Sedative Gastroscopy

“…This article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [ 1 ]. This investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process: Discrepancies in scope Discrepancies in the description of the research reported Discrepancies between the availability of data and the research described Inappropriate citations Incoherent, meaningless and/or irrelevant content included in the article Peer-review manipulation …”

“…This article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [1]. This investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process:…”