ArticleHong Kong physiotherapy journal : official publication of the Hong Kong Physiotherapy Association Limited = Wu li chih liao2024
Clinical application of intrapulmonary percussive ventilation: A scoping review.
Article in Hong Kong physiotherapy journal : official publication of the Hong Kong Physiotherapy Association Limited = Wu li chih liao, 2024. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Physiotherapy in Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia-What Is the Evidence?: A Narrative Review and Personal Experience.Pediatric pulmonology · 2026Review
- Comparative study on the effect of different high-frequency chest wall oscillation and back patting modes on sputum excretion in patients with severe pneumonia.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Drug Delivery via Intrapulmonary Percussion Ventilator: Time to Follow Queen Elsa's Advice.Respiratory care · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Impaired respiratory function secondary to acute or chronic respiratory disease poses a significant clinical and healthcare burden. Intrapulmonary percussive ventilation (IPV) is used in various clinical settings to treat excessive airway secretions, pulmonary atelectasis, and impaired gas exchange. Despite IPV's wide use, there is a lack of clinical guidance on IPV application which may lead to inconsistency in clinical practice. This scoping review aimed to summarise the clinical application methods and dosage of IPV used by clinicians and researchers to provide guidance. A two-staged systematic search was conducted to retrieve studies that used IPV in inpatient and outpatient settings. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Google scholar were searched from January 1979 till 2022. Studies with patients aged ≥16 years and published in any language were included. Two reviewers independently screened the title and abstract, reviewed full text articles, and extracted data. Search yielded 514 studies. After removing duplicates and irrelevant studies, 25 studies with 905 participants met the inclusion criteria. This is the first scoping review to summarise IPV application methods and dosages from the available studies in intensive care unit (ICU), acute inpatient (non-ICU), and outpatient settings. Some variations in clinical applications and prescribed dosages of IPV were noted. Despite variations, common trends in clinical application and prescription of IPV dosages were observed and summarised to assist clinicians with IPV intervention. Although an evidence-based clinical guideline could not be provided, this review provides detailed information on IPV application and dosages in order to provide clinical guidance and lays a foundation towards developing a clinical practice guideline in the future.
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.