SynthesisTherapeutic advances in respiratory disease
Effectiveness of positive expiratory pressure on patients over 16 years of age with cystic fibrosis: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Therapeutic advances in respiratory disease. 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.
- Active cycle of breathing technique versus oscillating positive expiratory pressure therapy: Effect on lung function in children with primary ciliary dyskinesia; A feasibility study.Chronic respiratory diseaseTrial
- Exploring Therapeutic Strategies for Pediatric Cystic Fibrosis: An In-Depth Comparative Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCystic fibrosis (CF) is an autosomal recessive disease that involves the cells that produce mucus and sweat, affecting many organs, especially the lungs. Positive expiratory pressure (PEP) devices generate a pressure opposite to that exerted by the airways during expiration, thus improving mucociliary clearance.
objectivesTo evaluate the efficacy of PEP devices as a resource to facilitate the mucus removal and other outcomes in people with CF, as well as the possible adverse effects derived from their use. MATERIAL AND
methodA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA standards. The descriptors were 'cystic fibrosis', 'PEP', and 'physiotherapy and/or physical therapy'. The search was performed in four databases: PubMed, PEDro, and Web of Science and Scopus, in July 2021. The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) over the last 10 years. The methodological quality of the studies was analyzed and meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager software.
resultsTen RCTs met the objectives and criteria, with a total of 274 participants. The trials score a moderate methodological quality on the PEDro scale. No clear results were obtained on whether PEP provides better lung function than other breathing techniques (such as airway clearance); but it does achieve a higher rate of lung clearance than physical exercise.
conclusionsPEP is more effective than usual care or no intervention, although there is not enough evidence to confirm that PEP achieves improvements in forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.