Cochrane · systematic review · CD006842
Oscillating devices for airway clearance in people with cystic fibrosis
Morrison, L, Milroy, S · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2020 · Cochrane Library
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
28
current version
GRADE rated
26
No studies
2
Included studies
NR
No studies 2 · 7.1%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 16 · 57.1%Low 10 · 35.7%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Current version onlyOscillating devices compared with PEP for cystic fibrosis
Population: adults and children with cystic fibrosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
FEV1: % predicted Oscillating devices vs PEP | no estimate extracted | 15 studies · 510 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
FEF25-75 : % predicted Oscillating devices vs PEP | no estimate extracted | 9 studies · 355 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
FVC Oscillating devices vs PEP | no estimate extracted | 9 studies · 362 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Sputum: volume (mL) Oscillating devices vs PEP | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 23 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Sputum:weight (dry or wet) (g) Oscillating devices vs PEP | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 104 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Frequency of exacerbationsb Oscillating devices vs PEP | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 219 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Participant‐reported satisfaction with treatment intervention Oscillating devices vs PEP | no estimate extracted | 7 studies · 242 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Oscillating devices compared with breathing techniques for cystic fibrosis
Population: adults and children with cystic fibrosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
FEV1: % predicted or L Oscillating devices vs breathing techniques | no estimate extracted | 9 studies · 210 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
FEF25-75 Oscillating devices vs breathing techniques | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 29 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
FVC Oscillating devices vs breathing techniques | no estimate extracted | 8 studies · 181 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Sputum: volume (g) Oscillating devices vs breathing techniques | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 14 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Sputum: weight (dry or wet) (g) Oscillating devices vs breathing techniques | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 114 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Frequency of exacerbationsb Oscillating devices vs breathing techniques | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Participant‐reported satisfaction with treatment intervention Oscillating devices vs breathing techniques | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 114 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Oscillating devices compared with conventional physiotherapy for cystic fibrosis
Population: adults and children with cystic fibrosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
FEV1: % predicted Oscillating devices vs conventional physiotherapy | no estimate extracted | 10 studies · 363 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
FEF25-75: % predicted Oscillating devices vs conventional physiotherapy | no estimate extracted | 8 studies · 319 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
FVC Oscillating devices vs conventional physiotherapy | no estimate extracted | 7 studies · 268 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Sputum: volume Oscillating devices vs conventional physiotherapy | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 17 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Sputum: weight (dry or wet) Oscillating devices vs conventional physiotherapy | no estimate extracted | 8 studies · 188 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Frequency of exacerbationsb Oscillating devices vs conventional physiotherapy | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 262 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Participant‐reported satisfaction with treatment intervention Oscillating devices vs conventional physiotherapy | no estimate extracted | 9 studies · 345 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Oscillating devices compared with different oscillating devices for cystic fibrosis
Population: adults and children with cystic fibrosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
FEV1 Oscillating devices vs different oscillating devices | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 320 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
FEF25-75 Oscillating devices vs different oscillating devices | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 211 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
FVC Oscillating devices vs different oscillating devices | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 290 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Sputum: volume Oscillating devices vs different oscillating devices | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Sputum: weight (dry or wet) Folllow‐up: 6 days Oscillating devices vs different oscillating devices | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 24 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Frequency of exacerbationsb Oscillating devices vs different oscillating devices | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 16 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Participant‐reported satisfaction with treatment intervention Oscillating devices vs different oscillating devices | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 265 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Oscillating devices compared with positive expiratory pressure (PEP) for cystic fibrosis
Population: adults and children with cystic fibrosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
FEV₁: % predicted Oscillating devices vs positive expiratory pressure (PEP) | no estimate extracted | 15 studies · 510 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
FEF25‐75 : % predicted Oscillating devices vs positive expiratory pressure (PEP) | no estimate extracted | 9 studies · 355 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
FVC Oscillating devices vs positive expiratory pressure (PEP) | no estimate extracted | 9 studies · 362 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Sputum: volume (mL) Oscillating devices vs positive expiratory pressure (PEP) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 23 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Sputum: weight (dry or wet) (g) Oscillating devices vs positive expiratory pressure (PEP) | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 104 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Frequency of exacerbations2 Oscillating devices vs positive expiratory pressure (PEP) | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 219 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Participant‐reported satisfaction with treatment intervention Oscillating devices vs positive expiratory pressure (PEP) | no estimate extracted | 7 studies · 242 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Oscillating devices compared with breathing techniques for cystic fibrosis
Population: adults and children with cystic fibrosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
FEV₁: % predicted or L Oscillating devices vs breathing techniques | no estimate extracted | 7 studies · 184 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
FEF25‐75 Oscillating devices vs breathing techniques | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 7 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
FVC Oscillating devices vs breathing techniques | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 154 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Sputum: volume (g) Oscillating devices vs breathing techniques | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 14 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Sputum: weight (dry or wet) (g) Oscillating devices vs breathing techniques | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 92 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Frequency of exacerbations2 Oscillating devices vs breathing techniques | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Participant‐reported satisfaction with treatment intervention Oscillating devices vs breathing techniques | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 92 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Oscillating devices compared with conventional physiotherapy for cystic fibrosis
Population: adults and children with cystic fibrosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
FEV₁: % predicted Oscillating devices vs conventional physiotherapy | no estimate extracted | 10 studies · 363 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
FEF25‐75: % predicted Oscillating devices vs conventional physiotherapy | no estimate extracted | 8 studies · 319 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
FVC Oscillating devices vs conventional physiotherapy | no estimate extracted | 7 studies · 268 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Sputum: volume Oscillating devices vs conventional physiotherapy | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 17 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Sputum: weight (dry or wet) Oscillating devices vs conventional physiotherapy | no estimate extracted | 8 studies · 188 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Frequency of exacerbations2 Oscillating devices vs conventional physiotherapy | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 262 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Participant‐reported satisfaction with treatment intervention Oscillating devices vs conventional physiotherapy | no estimate extracted | 9 studies · 345 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Oscillating devices compared with different oscillating devices for cystic fibrosis
Population: adults and children with cystic fibrosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
FEV₁ Oscillating devices vs different oscillating devices | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 316 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
FEF25‐75 Oscillating devices vs different oscillating devices | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 211 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
FVC Oscillating devices vs different oscillating devices | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 286 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Sputum: volume Oscillating devices vs different oscillating devices | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Sputum: weight (dry or wet) Folllow‐up: 6 days Oscillating devices vs different oscillating devices | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 24 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Frequency of exacerbations2 Oscillating devices vs different oscillating devices | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 16 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Participant‐reported satisfaction with treatment intervention Oscillating devices vs different oscillating devices | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 265 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |