↓ Skip to main content

Chest physiotherapy compared to no chest physiotherapy for cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
211 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Chest physiotherapy compared to no chest physiotherapy for cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001401.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Louise Warnock, Alison Gates

Abstract

Chest physiotherapy is widely used in people with cystic fibrosis in order to clear mucus from the airways. This is an updated version of previously published reviews. To determine the effectiveness and acceptability of chest physiotherapy compared to no treatment or spontaneous cough alone to improve mucus clearance in cystic fibrosis. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.Date of the most recent search of the Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register: 02 June 2015. Randomised or quasi-randomised clinical studies in which a form of chest physiotherapy (airway clearance technique) were taken for consideration in people with cystic fibrosis compared with either no physiotherapy treatment or spontaneous cough alone. Both authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. There was heterogeneity in the published outcomes, with variable reporting which meant pooling of the data for meta-analysis was not possible. The searches identified 157 studies, of which eight cross-over studies (data from 96 participants) met the inclusion criteria. There were differences between studies in the way that interventions were delivered, with several of the intervention groups combining more than one treatment modality. One included study looked at autogenic drainage, six considered conventional chest physiotherapy, three considered oscillating positive expiratory pressure, seven considered positive expiratory pressure and one considered high pressure positive expiratory pressure. Of the eight studies, six were single-treatment studies and in two, the treatment intervention was performed over two consecutive days (once daily in one, twice daily in the other). This enormous heterogeneity in the treatment interventions prevented any meta-analyses from being performed. Blinding of participants, caregivers or clinicians in airway clearance studies is impossible; therefore this was not considered as a high risk of bias in the included studies. Lack of protocol data made assessment of risk of bias unclear for the majority of other criteria.Four studies, involving 28 participants, reported a higher amount of expectorated secretions during chest physiotherapy as compared to a control. One study, involving 18 participants, reported no significant differences in sputum weight. In five studies radioactive tracer clearance was used as an outcome variable. In three of these (28 participants) it was reported that chest physiotherapy, including coughing, increased radioactive tracer clearance as compared to the control period. One study (12 participants) reported increased radioactive tracer clearance associated with all interventions compared to control, although this was only reported to have reached significance for postural drainage with percussion and vibrations; and the remaining study (eight participants) reported no significant difference in radioactive tracer clearance between chest physiotherapy, without coughing, compared to the control period. Three studies, involving 42 participants reported no significant effect on pulmonary function variables following intervention; but one further study did report significant improvement in pulmonary function following the intervention in some of the treatment groups. The results of this review show that airway clearance techniques have short-term effects in the terms of increasing mucus transport. No evidence was found on which to draw conclusions concerning the long-term effects.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 211 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 4 2%
Brazil 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 201 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 58 27%
Student > Master 39 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 9%
Unspecified 20 9%
Student > Postgraduate 18 9%
Other 56 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 88 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 50 24%
Unspecified 27 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 3%
Other 32 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 January 2017.
All research outputs
#655,197
of 12,356,828 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,822
of 8,456 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,513
of 332,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#61
of 190 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,356,828 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,456 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,868 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 190 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.