Efficacy of Respiratory Physiotherapy Interventions for Intubated and Mechanically Ventilated Adults with Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: A systematic review was conducted to investigate the effect of respiratory physiotherapy on mortality, quality of life, functional recovery, intensive care length of stay, duration of ventilation, oxygenation, secretion clearance, and pulmonary mechanics for invasively ventilated adults with pneumonia. Method: Five databases were searched for randomized trials published between January 1995 and November 2018. Study quality was assessed using a standardized Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool, and Review Manager software was used to pool the studies. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to evaluate the level of certainty of the evidence. Results: A total of 14 studies of moderate quality included 251 subjects with pneumonia. Eight studies were pooled for meta-analysis. Interventions that increased inspiratory volume appeared to benefit secretion clearance by nearly 2 grams (mean difference [MD] 1.97; 95% CI: 0.80, 3.14; very low GRADE evidence) and increase static lung compliance immediately after treatment by more than 5 millilitres/centimetre H20 (MD 5.40 mL/cm H2O; 95% CI: 2.37, 8.43; very low GRADE evidence) or by more than 6 millilitres/centimetre H2O after a 20- to 30-minute delay (MD 6.86 mL/cm H2O; 95% CI: 2.86, 10.86; very low GRADE evidence). No adverse events were found. Conclusions: Respiratory physiotherapy that increases tidal volume may benefit secretion clearance and lung compliance in invasively ventilated adults with pneumonia, but its impact on other outcomes, including mortality, length of stay, and other patient-centred outcomes, is unclear, and further research is required.
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 | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.027 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".