Question · asked by 1 review
Summary of findings ‐ PEP vs oscillating PEP: FEV1 % predicted: absolute change from baseline
- Population
- adults and children with CF
- Intervention
- Summary of findings ‐ PEP
- Comparison
- oscillating PEP
- Outcome
- FEV1 % predicted: absolute change from baseline
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary of findings ‐ PEP vs oscillating PEP FEV1: change from baseline (% predicted) · adults and children with CF Positive expiratory pressure physiotherapy for airway clearance in people with cystic fibrosis (2019) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 7 studies · 217 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Positive expiratory pressure physiotherapy for airway clearance in people with cystic fibrosis 2019 · 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 ‐ PEP vs PDPV · adults and children with CF · 1 review
- Summary of findings ‐ PEP vs HFCWO · adults and children with CF · 1 review
- Summary of findings ‐ PEP vs airway clearance techniques · adults and children with cystic fibrosis · 1 review
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.