Cochrane · systematic review · CD009595
Autogenic drainage for airway clearance in cystic fibrosis
Burnham, P, Stanford, G, Stewart, R · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2021 · 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
63
current version
GRADE rated
27
No studies
36
Included studies
NR
No studies 36 · 57.1%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 11 · 17.5%Low 15 · 23.8%Moderate 1 · 1.6%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 onlyAutogenic drainage versus conventional physiotherapy
Population: adults and children with CF
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
FEV1 % predicted (change from baseline) Autogenic drainage vs conventional physiotherapy | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 54 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
QoL (Likert scale 0 ‐ 10) Autogenic drainage vs conventional physiotherapy | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 54 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Participant preference Autogenic drainage vs conventional physiotherapy | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 36 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Exercise tolerance Autogenic drainage vs conventional physiotherapy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Autogenic drainage vs conventional physiotherapy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Number of admissions to hospital Autogenic drainage vs conventional physiotherapy | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 36 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Need for extra treatment Autogenic drainage vs conventional physiotherapy | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 36 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Autogenic drainage versus spontaneous cough
Population: adults and children with CF
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
FEV1 % predicted Autogenic drainage vs spontaneous cough | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 14 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
QoL Autogenic drainage vs spontaneous cough | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Participant preference Autogenic drainage vs spontaneous cough | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Exercise tolerance Autogenic drainage vs spontaneous cough | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Autogenic drainage vs spontaneous cough | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 14 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Number of admissions to hospital Autogenic drainage vs spontaneous cough | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Need for extra treatment Autogenic drainage vs spontaneous cough | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Autogenic drainage versus active cycle of breathing technique
Population: adults and children with CF
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
FEV1 (L) Autogenic drainage vs active cycle of breathing technique | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 44 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
QoL (SF‐36 and CRQ) Autogenic drainage vs active cycle of breathing technique | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Participant preference Autogenic drainage vs active cycle of breathing technique | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 44 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Exercise tolerance (modified shuttle test) Autogenic drainage vs active cycle of breathing technique | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Adverse events Autogenic drainage vs active cycle of breathing technique | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 18 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Number of admissions to hospital Autogenic drainage vs active cycle of breathing technique | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Need for extra treatment Autogenic drainage vs active cycle of breathing technique | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Autogenic drainage versus positive expiratory pressure
Population: adults and children with CF
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
FEV1 (L) Autogenic drainage vs positive expiratory pressure | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 62 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
QoL (SF‐36 and CRQ) Autogenic drainage vs positive expiratory pressure | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Participant preference Autogenic drainage vs positive expiratory pressure | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Exercise tolerance: modified shuttle test Autogenic drainage vs positive expiratory pressure | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Autogenic drainage vs positive expiratory pressure | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Number of admissions to hospital Autogenic drainage vs positive expiratory pressure | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Need for extra treatment Autogenic drainage vs positive expiratory pressure | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Autogenic drainage versus Cornet®
Population: adults with CF
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
FEV1 (L) Autogenic drainage vs Cornet® | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 27 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
QoL (SF‐36 and CRQ) Autogenic drainage vs Cornet® | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Participant preference Autogenic drainage vs Cornet® | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Exercise tolerance: modified shuttle test Autogenic drainage vs Cornet® | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Autogenic drainage vs Cornet® | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Number of admissions to hospital Autogenic drainage vs Cornet® | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Need for extra treatment Autogenic drainage vs Cornet® | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Autogenic drainage versus Flutter®
Population: adults and children with CF
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
FEV1 (L) Autogenic drainage vs Flutter® | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 39 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
QoL (SF‐36 and CRQ) Autogenic drainage vs Flutter® | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Participant preference Autogenic drainage vs Flutter® | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Exercise tolerance: modified shuttle test Autogenic drainage vs Flutter® | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Autogenic drainage vs Flutter® | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Number of admissions to hospital Autogenic drainage vs Flutter® | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Need for extra treatment Autogenic drainage vs Flutter® | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Autogenic drainage versus high frequency chest wall oscillation
Population: adults with CF
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
FEV1 Autogenic drainage vs high frequency chest wall oscillation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
QoL Autogenic drainage vs high frequency chest wall oscillation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Participant preference Autogenic drainage vs high frequency chest wall oscillation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Exercise tolerance (modified shuttle test) Autogenic drainage vs high frequency chest wall oscillation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Autogenic drainage vs high frequency chest wall oscillation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Number of admissions to hospital Autogenic drainage vs high frequency chest wall oscillation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Need for extra treatment Autogenic drainage vs high frequency chest wall oscillation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Autogenic drainage versus intrapulmonary percussive ventilation (200 bpm)
Population: adults with CF
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
FEV1% predicted (change from baseline) Autogenic drainage vs intrapulmonary percussive ventilation (200 bpm) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 4 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
QoL Autogenic drainage vs intrapulmonary percussive ventilation (200 bpm) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Participant preference Autogenic drainage vs intrapulmonary percussive ventilation (200 bpm) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Exercise tolerance (modified shuttle test) Autogenic drainage vs intrapulmonary percussive ventilation (200 bpm) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Autogenic drainage vs intrapulmonary percussive ventilation (200 bpm) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Number of admissions to hospital Autogenic drainage vs intrapulmonary percussive ventilation (200 bpm) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Need for extra treatment Autogenic drainage vs intrapulmonary percussive ventilation (200 bpm) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Autogenic drainage versus intrapulmonary percussive ventilation (400 bpm)
Population: adults with CF
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
FEV1 % predicted (change from baseline) Autogenic drainage vs intrapulmonary percussive ventilation (400 bpm) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 4 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
QoL Autogenic drainage vs intrapulmonary percussive ventilation (400 bpm) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Participant preference Autogenic drainage vs intrapulmonary percussive ventilation (400 bpm) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Exercise tolerance (modified shuttle test) Autogenic drainage vs intrapulmonary percussive ventilation (400 bpm) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Autogenic drainage vs intrapulmonary percussive ventilation (400 bpm) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Number of admissions to hospital Autogenic drainage vs intrapulmonary percussive ventilation (400 bpm) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Need for extra treatment Autogenic drainage vs intrapulmonary percussive ventilation (400 bpm) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Autogenic drainage versus conventional physiotherapy
Population: adults and children with CF
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
FEV₁ % predicted (change from baseline) Autogenic drainage vs conventional physiotherapy | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 54 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
QoL (Likert scale 0 ‐ 10) Autogenic drainage vs conventional physiotherapy | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 54 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Participant preference Autogenic drainage vs conventional physiotherapy | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 36 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Exercise tolerance Autogenic drainage vs conventional physiotherapy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Autogenic drainage vs conventional physiotherapy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Number of admissions to hospital Autogenic drainage vs conventional physiotherapy | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 36 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Need for extra treatment Autogenic drainage vs conventional physiotherapy | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 36 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Autogenic drainage versus spontaneous cough
Population: adults and children with CF
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
FEV₁ % predicted Autogenic drainage vs spontaneous cough | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 14 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
QoL Autogenic drainage vs spontaneous cough | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Participant preference Autogenic drainage vs spontaneous cough | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Exercise tolerance Autogenic drainage vs spontaneous cough | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Autogenic drainage vs spontaneous cough | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 14 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Number of admissions to hospital Autogenic drainage vs spontaneous cough | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Need for extra treatment Autogenic drainage vs spontaneous cough | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Autogenic drainage versus active cycle of breathing technique
Population: adults and children with CF
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
FEV₁ (L) Autogenic drainage vs active cycle of breathing technique | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 44 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
QoL (SF‐36 and CRQ) Autogenic drainage vs active cycle of breathing technique | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Participant preference Autogenic drainage vs active cycle of breathing technique | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 44 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Exercise tolerance (modified shuttle test) Autogenic drainage vs active cycle of breathing technique | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Adverse events Autogenic drainage vs active cycle of breathing technique | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 18 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Number of admissions to hospital Autogenic drainage vs active cycle of breathing technique | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Need for extra treatment Autogenic drainage vs active cycle of breathing technique | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Autogenic drainage versus positive expiratory pressure
Population: adults and children with cystic fibrosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
FEV₁ (L) Autogenic drainage vs positive expiratory pressure | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 62 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
QoL (SF‐36 and CRQ) Autogenic drainage vs positive expiratory pressure | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Participant preference Autogenic drainage vs positive expiratory pressure | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Exercise tolerance: modified shuttle test Autogenic drainage vs positive expiratory pressure | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Autogenic drainage vs positive expiratory pressure | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Number of admissions to hospital Autogenic drainage vs positive expiratory pressure | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Need for extra treatment Autogenic drainage vs positive expiratory pressure | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Autogenic drainage versus Cornet®
Population: adults with cystic fibrosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
FEV₁ (L) Autogenic drainage vs Cornet® | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 27 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
QoL (SF‐36 and CRQ) Autogenic drainage vs Cornet® | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Participant preference Autogenic drainage vs Cornet® | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Exercise tolerance: modified shuttle test Autogenic drainage vs Cornet® | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Autogenic drainage vs Cornet® | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Number of admissions to hospital Autogenic drainage vs Cornet® | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Need for extra treatment Autogenic drainage vs Cornet® | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Autogenic drainage versus Flutter®
Population: adults and children with cystic fibrosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
FEV₁ (L) Autogenic drainage vs Flutter® | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 39 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
QoL (SF‐36 and CRQ) Autogenic drainage vs Flutter® | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Participant preference Autogenic drainage vs Flutter® | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Exercise tolerance: modified shuttle test Autogenic drainage vs Flutter® | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Autogenic drainage vs Flutter® | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Number of admissions to hospital Autogenic drainage vs Flutter® | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Need for extra treatment Autogenic drainage vs Flutter® | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Autogenic drainage versus high frequency chest wall oscillation
Population: adults with cystic fibrosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
FEV₁ Autogenic drainage vs high frequency chest wall oscillation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
QoL Autogenic drainage vs high frequency chest wall oscillation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Participant preference Autogenic drainage vs high frequency chest wall oscillation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Exercise tolerance (modified shuttle test) Autogenic drainage vs high frequency chest wall oscillation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Autogenic drainage vs high frequency chest wall oscillation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Number of admissions to hospital Autogenic drainage vs high frequency chest wall oscillation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Need for extra treatment Autogenic drainage vs high frequency chest wall oscillation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |