↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Autogenic drainage for airway clearance in cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 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 (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

14 tweeters
3 Facebook pages


18 Dimensions

Readers on

323 Mendeley
Autogenic drainage for airway clearance in cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009595.pub2
Pubmed ID

Pamela McCormack, Paul Burnham, Kevin W Southern


Autogenic drainage is an airway clearance technique that was developed by Jean Chevaillier in 1967. The technique is characterised by breathing control using expiratory airflow to mobilise secretions from smaller to larger airways. Secretions are cleared independently by adjusting the depth and speed of respiration in a sequence of controlled breathing techniques during exhalation. The technique requires training, concentration and effort from the individual. It is important to systematically review the evidence demonstrating that autogenic drainage is an effective intervention for people with cystic fibrosis. To compare the clinical effectiveness of autogenic drainage in people with cystic fibrosis with other physiotherapy airway clearance techniques. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, as well as two trials registers (31 August 2017).Dtae of most recent search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register: 25 September 2017. We identified randomised and quasi-randomised controlled studies comparing autogenic drainage to another airway clearance technique or no therapy in people with cystic fibrosis for at least two treatment sessions. Data extraction and assessments of risk of bias were independently performed by two authors. The authors assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE system. The authors contacted two investigators for further information pertinent to their published studies. Searches retrieved 35 references to 21 individual studies, of which seven (n = 208) were eligible for inclusion. One study was of parallel design with the remaining six being cross-over in design; participant numbers ranged from 17 to 75. The total study duration varied between four days and two years. The age of participants ranged between seven and 63 years with a wide range of disease severity reported. Six studies enrolled participants who were clinically stable, whilst participants in one study had been hospitalised with an infective exacerbation. All studies compared autogenic drainage to one (or more) other recognised airway clearance technique. Exercise is commonly used as an alternative therapy by people with cystic fibrosis; however, there were no studies identified comparing exercise with autogenic drainage.The quality of the evidence was generally low or very low. The main reasons for downgrading the level of evidence were the frequent use of a cross-over design, outcome reporting bias and the inability to blind participants.The review's primary outcome, forced expiratory volume in one second, was the most common outcome measured and was reported by all seven studies; only three studies reported on quality of life (also a primary outcome of the review). One study reported on adverse events and described a decrease in oxygen saturation levels whilst performing active cycle of breathing techniques, but not with autogenic drainage. Six of the seven included studies measured forced vital capacity and three of the studies used mid peak expiratory flow (per cent predicted) as an outcome. Six studies reported sputum weight. Less commonly used outcomes included oxygen saturation levels, personal preference, hospital admissions or intravenous antibiotics. There were no statistically significant differences found between any of the techniques used with respect to the outcomes measured except when autogenic drainage was described as being the preferred technique of the participants in one study over postural drainage and percussion. Autogenic drainage is a challenging technique that requires commitment from the individual. As such, this intervention merits systematic review to ensure its effectiveness for people with cystic fibrosis. From the studies assessed, autogenic drainage was not found to be superior to any other form of airway clearance technique. Larger studies are required to better evaluate autogenic drainage in comparison to other airway clearance techniques in view of the relatively small number of participants in this review and the complex study designs. The studies recruited a range of participants and were not powered to assess non-inferiority. The varied length and design of the studies made the analysis of pooled data challenging.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 323 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 323 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 61 19%
Student > Master 48 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 5%
Researcher 15 5%
Student > Postgraduate 14 4%
Other 47 15%
Unknown 122 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 86 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 51 16%
Sports and Recreations 14 4%
Social Sciences 9 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 2%
Other 27 8%
Unknown 129 40%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 July 2019.
All research outputs
of 20,573,048 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 296,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 259 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,573,048 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,079 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 296,109 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 259 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.