Question · asked by 1 review
Summary of findings ‐ 400 mg inhaled mannitol vs 50 mg inhaled mannitol: HRQoL ‐ all domains (change from baseline) Scale: age‐appropriate versions of the CFQ‐R questionnaire
- Population
- adults, children and young people with CF
- Intervention
- Summary of findings ‐ 400 mg inhaled mannitol
- Comparison
- 50 mg inhaled mannitol
- Outcome
- HRQoL ‐ all domains (change from baseline) Scale: age‐appropriate versions of the CFQ‐R questionnaire
What each review found
Current versions onlyNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 2 · 100%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary of findings ‐ 400 mg inhaled mannitol vs 50 mg inhaled mannitol HRQoL ‐ all domains (change from baseline) Scale: age‐appropriate versions of the CFQ‐R questionnaire · adults, children and young people with CF Inhaled mannitol for cystic fibrosis (2020) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 324 participants | Low |
Summary of findings ‐ 400 mg inhaled mannitol vs 50 mg inhaled mannitol HRQoL ‐ all domains (change from baseline) Scale: age‐appropriate versions of the CFQ‐R questionnaire · adults, children and young people with CF Inhaled mannitol for cystic fibrosis (2018) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD008649.PUB3, superseded | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 324 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inhaled mannitol for cystic fibrosis 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | Not extracted | Not assessed |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Summary of findings ‐ 400 mg inhaled mannitol vs 50 mg inhaled mannitol · adults and children with CF · 0 reviews
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.