Question · asked by 1 review
Oscillating devices vs different oscillating devices: FVC
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Oscillating devices vs different oscillating devices FVC · adults and children with cystic fibrosis Oscillating devices for airway clearance in people with cystic fibrosis (2020) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 290 participants | Very low |
Oscillating devices vs different oscillating devices FVC · adults and children with cystic fibrosis Oscillating devices for airway clearance in people with cystic fibrosis (2017) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD006842.PUB4, superseded | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 286 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oscillating devices for airway clearance in people with cystic fibrosis 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.