ArticleCanadian respiratory journal2026
A Prospective, Multicenter Study Investigating the Effectiveness of an Oscillating Positive Expiratory Pressure (OPEP) Device in COPD Patients in Québec, Canada.
Article in Canadian respiratory journal, 2026. 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.
- A Prospective, Multicenter Study Investigating the Effectiveness of an Oscillating Positive Expiratory Pressure (OPEP) Device in COPD Patients in Québec, Canada.Canadian respiratory journal · 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
Abstract
rationaleClinical benefits of oscillating positive expiratory pressure (OPEP) devices have been previously demonstrated in many respiratory diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study aimed to provide patient-reported outcomes of OPEP treatment in COPD patients in Québec, Canada.
methodRecruitment took place across 4 sites. Included patients had a COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score greater than 10 and a mucus score of 2 or greater. Aerobika
resultData were analyzed from 46 patients. The average CAT score at 6 weeks was significantly lower than baseline (19.02 ± 6.59 vs. 23.65 ± 6.44, p < 0.00001), with 31/44 patients (70.5%) reaching the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Scores decreased further at 12 weeks (16.15 ± 6.06), a significant improvement from 6 weeks (p = 0.0052). MCID was reached by 39/44 patients (84.8%) after 12 weeks of treatment. Average 6 and 12 week mucus scores (2.59 ± 1.02 and 2.28 ± 1.13, respectively) were both significantly lower than baseline (3.63 ± 0.97; p < 0.00001 at 6 and 12 weeks). Regarding device feedback, 43/44 patients (97.7%) would continue using the device. The proportion of patients that provided 4/5 or 5/5 satisfaction ratings was 40/45 (88.9%), 43/45 (95.6%), and 40/45 (88.9%) for ease of use, quality, and overall satisfaction, respectively. No device-related adverse events were reported.
conclusionStatistically significant clinical improvements were observed with OPEP therapy. This study supports the use of the Aerobika
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.