↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Positive expiratory pressure therapy versus other airway clearance techniques for bronchiectasis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2017
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 (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
23 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
190 Mendeley
Title
Positive expiratory pressure therapy versus other airway clearance techniques for bronchiectasis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011699.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annemarie L Lee, Angela T Burge, Anne E Holland

Abstract

People with bronchiectasis experience chronic cough and sputum production and require the prescription of airway clearance techniques (ACTs). A common type of ACT prescribed is positive expiratory pressure (PEP) therapy. A previous review has suggested that ACTs including PEP therapy are beneficial compared to no treatment in people with bronchiectasis. However, the efficacy of PEP therapy in a stable clinical state or during an acute exacerbation compared to other ACTs in bronchiectasis is unknown. The primary aim of this review was to determine the effects of PEP therapy compared with other ACTs on health-related quality of life (HRQOL), rate of acute exacerbations, and incidence of hospitalisation in individuals with stable or an acute exacerbation of bronchiectasis.Secondary aims included determining the effects of PEP therapy upon physiological outcomes and clinical signs and symptoms compared with other ACTs in individuals with stable or an acute exacerbation of bronchiectasis. We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials, PEDro and clinical trials registries from inception to February 2017 and we handsearched relevant journals. Randomised controlled parallel and cross-over trials that compared PEP therapy versus other ACTs in participants with bronchiectasis. We used standard methodological procedures as outlined by Cochrane. Nine studies involving 213 participants met the inclusion criteria, of which seven were cross-over in design. All studies included adults with bronchiectasis, with eight including participants in a stable clinical state and one including participants experiencing an acute exacerbation. Eight studies used oscillatory PEP therapy, using either a Flutter or Acapella device and one study used Minimal PEP therapy. The comparison intervention differed between studies. The methodological quality of studies was poor, with cross-over studies including suboptimal or no washout period, and a lack of blinding of participants, therapists or personnel for outcome measure assessment in most studies. Clinical heterogeneity between studies limited meta-analysis.Daily use of oscillatory PEP therapy for four weeks was associated with improved general health according to the Short-Form 36 questionnaire compared to the active cycle of breathing technique (ACBT). When applied for three sessions over one week, minimal PEP therapy resulted in similar improvement in cough-related quality of life as autogenic drainage (AD) and L'expiration Lente Totale Glotte Ouverte en Decubitus Lateral (ELTGOL). Oscillatory PEP therapy twice daily for four weeks had similar effects on disease-specific HRQOL (MD -0.09, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.19; low-quality evidence). Data were not available to determine the incidence of hospitalisation or rate of exacerbation in clinically stable participants.Two studies of a single session comparison of oscillatory PEP therapy and gravity-assisted drainage (GAD) with ACBT had contrasting findings. One study found a similar sputum weight produced with both techniques (SMD 0.54g (-0.38 to 1.46; 20 participants); the other found greater sputum expectoration with GAD and ACBT (SMD 5.6 g (95% CI 2.91 to 8.29: 36 participants). There was no difference in sputum weight yielded between oscillatory PEP therapy and ACBT with GAD when applied daily for four weeks or during an acute exacerbation. Although a single session of oscillatory PEP therapy was associated with less sputum compared to AD (median difference 3.1 g (95% CI 1.5 to 4.8 g; one study, 31 participants), no difference between oscillatory PEP therapy and seated ACBT was evident. PEP therapy had a similar effect on dynamic and static measures of lung volumes and gas exchange as all other ACTs. A single session of oscillatory PEP therapy (Flutter) generated a similar level of fatigue as ACBT with GAD, but greater fatigue was noted with oscillatory PEP therapy compared to ACBT alone. The degree of breathlessness experienced with PEP therapy did not differ from other techniques. Among studies exploring adverse events, only one study reported nausea with use of oscillatory PEP therapy. PEP therapy appears to have similar effects on HRQOL, symptoms of breathlessness, sputum expectoration, and lung volumes compared to other ACTs when prescribed within a stable clinical state or during an acute exacerbation. The number of studies and the overall quality of the evidence were both low. In view of the chronic nature of bronchiectasis, additional information is needed to establish the long-term clinical effects of PEP therapy over other ACTs for outcomes that are important to people with bronchiectasis and on clinical parameters which impact on disease progression and patient morbidity in individuals with stable bronchiectasis. In addition, the role of PEP therapy during an acute exacerbation requires further exploration. This information is necessary to provide further guidance for prescription of PEP therapy for people with bronchiectasis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 190 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 190 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 18%
Student > Bachelor 25 13%
Researcher 20 11%
Student > Postgraduate 16 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 8%
Other 32 17%
Unknown 47 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 39 21%
Social Sciences 9 5%
Sports and Recreations 8 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Other 24 13%
Unknown 54 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 20 October 2017.
All research outputs
#1,166,279
of 14,259,178 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,396
of 10,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,580
of 274,412 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#101
of 244 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,259,178 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,933 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 274,412 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 244 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 58% of its contemporaries.