ArticleCanadian journal of respiratory therapy : CJRT = Revue canadienne de la therapie respiratoire : RCTR2015
Mechanical insufflation-exsufflation: Practice patterns among respiratory therapists in Ontario.
Article in Canadian journal of respiratory therapy : CJRT = Revue canadienne de la therapie respiratoire : RCTR, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanical insufflation-exsufflation use in neuromuscular disease: a single centre cohort study.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Observational
- Initial assessment and management of respiratory infections in persons with spinal cord injuries and disorders in the COVID-19 era.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2020Review
- A Review on Cough Augmentation Techniques: Assisted Inspiration, Assisted Expiration and Their Combination.Physiological research · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe mechanical insufflator-exsufflator (MIE) is effective in assisting cough and in helping to avoid unplanned hospitalizations, tracheostomy and long-term ventilation in patients with neuromuscular disease or spinal cord injury. Despite this, the availability and usage of the device in Canada is unknown.
objectiveTo investigate practice patterns and availability of the MIE in Ontario hospitals.
methodsA cross-sectional, self-administered mail survey was sent to a random sample of 400 respiratory therapists practicing in 96 Ontario hospitals.
resultsA total of 114 (28%) completed surveys were returned from 62 (65%) hospitals. Twenty (32%) hospitals had a MIE. The respiratory therapist was the predominant health care provider using the MIE. The device was most commonly used in the intensive care unit, and medical/surgical units in patients with neuromuscular diseases or spinal cord injuries. Optimal pressure spans of 35 cmH2O to 40 cmH2O were used by 54% of respondents. Fourteen of the 20 hospitals with an MIE had policies or guidelines in place, and four of these hospitals had established staff competencies. Measurements of peak cough flow, maximal inspiratory/expiratory pressure and vital capacity were reported to be infrequently performed.
conclusionsThe present study demonstrated that the MIE device is not widely available in Ontario hospitals and there are variations in how the devices are applied, possibly resulting in suboptimal therapy. A comprehensive educational program about MIE devices that incorporates best practices and a practical component is recommended for current providers as well as for inclusion in student curricula.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26089736PMC4467476W270828900What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.