Physiotherapy in Asthma—Seeking Consensus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The evidence base for or against physiotherapy interventions in asthmatic adults remains ambiguous, and there are discrepancies between different clinical practice guidelines. We evaluated the level of agreement between the recommendations about physiotherapy for adults with asthma in two major clinical practice guidelines: the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA 2011) and the British Thoracic Society and the Association of Chartered Physiotherapists in Respiratory Care (BTS/ACPRC 2009). METHODS: We used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument to assess the methodological rigor of the guideline development, the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews and clinical trials included in the analyzed documents. Additionally, we compared the reference lists of the analyzed sections to establish the overlap in included primary and secondary studies. RESULTS: We observed no agreement between the two guidelines in the choice of source research articles. Only two studies out of 18 used in BTS guidelines were used in the GINA. The reason why GINA developers did not use the body of evidence included in BTS is that it is not clear. Three independent investigators indicated higher scores in all domains of the AGREE II in the BTS/ACPRC document in comparison with the GINA guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The significant differences in the content and in the development processes of the examined sections of the two guidelines suggest the need for more frequent and careful updating or directing the readers of the GINA to the BTS/ACPRC, a guideline addressing specifically and more comprehensively physiotherapy interventions in asthma.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.204 | 0.395 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".