ReviewERJ open research2025
Outcomes and measures in studies of techniques to promote secretion clearance in individuals with neuromuscular conditions: a scoping review.
Review in ERJ open research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Techniques to support secretion clearance for individuals with neuromuscular conditions and respiratory muscle weakness include mechanical insufflation-exsufflation and chest wall vibrations. Assessing the comparative efficacy of these techniques is challenging due to the absence of a core outcome set. We sought to describe outcomes and measurement instruments reported in studies of airway clearance techniques for individuals with neuromuscular conditions living in the community. Methods: We conducted a scoping review of primary research studies. We searched six databases from inception to 22 February 2024. Two reviewers independently screened citations against the inclusion criteria and extracted data on outcomes and measurement characteristics. Outcomes were categorised according to the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) 38-domain taxonomy. Results: We identified 75 eligible studies describing 55 outcomes. We grouped outcomes deemed overlapping and categorised them using the COMET 38-domain taxonomy, resulting in 34 distinct outcomes. Common physiological/clinical outcomes were cough strength (n=48 studies, 64%), lung volume (n=48, 64%) and insufflation capacity (n=22, 29%). The most common measurement tools for these outcomes were spirometer (n=38, 51%), peak flow meter (n=24, 32%) and pneumotachograph (n=20, 27%). The most common resource-use outcome was hospitalisation due to respiratory illness (n=13, 17%). Few studies reported on life impact outcomes, with the most common being comfort (n=6, 8%) and patient satisfaction (n=4, 5%). Conclusion: We identified 34 outcomes from 75 studies, which were most commonly physiological/clinical, with resource-use and life impact outcomes being seldom reported. The number and range of outcomes and measures demonstrates the need for a core outcome set.
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.