Effect of airway clearance techniques in patients experiencing an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Answers were sought to the following question: Are techniques, applied predominantly with the aim of clearing secretions from the airways, to patients during an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD), safe and effective? A systematic review was undertaken of studies that (i) were either randomized controlled or randomized cross-over trials, (ii) recruited patients during an AECOPD, (iii) reported the results of between-group analyses and (iv) investigated the effect of techniques applied primarily with the aim of clearing secretions from the airways. Studies that examined non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) and early rehabilitation were excluded. Data were extracted pertaining to resting lung function, gas exchange, sputum expectoration, symptoms, NIPPV use and hospital stay. Five studies were included with a mean Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) score of 4.4 +/- 1.1 (range: 3-6). The main findings were that (i) airway clearance techniques did not improve measures of resting lung function or produce any consistent change in measures of gas exchange, (ii) the application of 5 min of continuous chest wall percussion reduced forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV( 1)), (iii) in people with copious secretions, mechanical vibration, and non-oscillating positive expiratory pressure (PEP) mask therapy increased sputum expectoration and (iv) in patients with hypercapnic respiratory failure, intrapulmonary percussive ventilation (IPV) and PEP mask therapy reduced the need for, and duration of, NIPPV, respectively. With the exception of continuous chest wall percussion, airway clearance techniques were safe in patients during an AECOPD. Vibration and non-oscillating PEP facilitated sputum expectoration in patients characterized by copious airway secretions. In patients with respiratory failure, techniques that apply a positive pressure to the airways may reduce either the need for, or duration of, NIPPV and hospital length of stay.
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 | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".