Trial reportScientific reports2025
The comparison of two types of physiotherapy techniques on selected weaning indices of patients requiring mechanical ventilation: a single blind randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effectiveness and Physiological Safety of a Lung Vibration Device for Airway Clearance in Patients with Sputum Retention: A Randomized Crossover Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chest physiotherapy, a key component of bronchial hygiene therapy, plays an important role in the overall management and care of patients who require Mechanical Ventilation (MV). We compared the effects of two types of physiotherapy techniques on selected weaning indices of patients requiring MV. We conducted a single-blind randomized controlled clinical trial with pre- and post-measurements in 60 patients requiring MV. Randomization was performed via block randomization with Sequential Numbered Opaque Sealed Envelopes. Participants were randomized into (1) lung squeezing technique (LST) or (2) chest vibration and percussion technique (CVPT). Data collection was carried out using a researcher-created checklist that comprised two sections. The first section gathered patient demographic information, while the second section functioned as a vital sign record sheet. This vital sign record was further divided: the initial part documented systolic and diastolic blood pressure, pulse rate, oxygen saturation, and RSBI prior to the intervention, and the follow-up part captured the same vital signs at intervals of 5- and 25-minutes post-intervention. There was no statistically significant difference between systolic and diastolic blood pressure, respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation scores of the two study groups at baseline and at 5- and 25-minute intervals post-intervention (P > 0.05). However, in terms of rapid, shallow breathing index (RSBI), a significant difference was observed between the two groups scores at baseline (LST: 38.5 (36.2-44.1) vs. CVPT: 35.2 (33.7-38); P < 0.0), 5-minutes post-intervention (LST: 36.6 (34.3-44) vs. CVPT: 34.8 (32.2-36.9); P < 0.05) and 25-minutes post-intervention (LST: 37.1 (32.5-44.4) vs. CVPT: 34 (32.5-35.8); P < 0.05). The results demonstrated that LST outperformed CVPT in enhancing the RSBI, which serves as a weaning index for patients requiring MV. This suggests that LST may facilitate earlier weaning and extubation for these patients. IRCT20091215002861N18, 09/12/2022.Trial Registration Number: IRCT20091215002861N18, 09/12/2022.
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.