Article

Chest physiotherapy for pneumonia in adults

Department of Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 01/2013; 2(2):CD006338. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006338.pub3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Despite conflicting evidence, chest physiotherapy has been widely used as an adjunctive treatment for adults with pneumonia.
To assess the effectiveness and safety of chest physiotherapy for pneumonia in adults.
We searched CENTRAL 2012, Issue 11, MEDLINE (1966 to November week 2, 2012), EMBASE (1974 to November 2012), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) (1929 to November 2012), CINAHL (2009 to November 2012) and CBM (1978 to November 2012).
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of chest physiotherapy for treating pneumonia in adults.
Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data and appraised trial quality. Primary outcomes were mortality and cure rate. We used risk ratios (RR) and mean difference (MD) for individual trial results in the data analysis. We performed meta-analysis and measured all outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Six RCTs (434 participants) appraised four types of chest physiotherapy (conventional chest physiotherapy; osteopathic manipulative treatment (which includes paraspinal inhibition, rib raising and myofascial release); active cycle of breathing techniques (which include active breathing control, thoracic expansion exercises and forced expiration techniques); and positive expiratory pressure).None of the physiotherapies (versus no physiotherapy or placebo) improved mortality rates of adults with pneumonia.Conventional chest physiotherapy (versus no physiotherapy), active cycle of breathing techniques (versus no physiotherapy) and osteopathic manipulative treatment (versus placebo) did not increase the cure rate or chest X-ray improvement rate.Osteopathic manipulative treatment (versus placebo) and positive expiratory pressure (versus no physiotherapy) reduced the mean duration of hospital stay by 2.0 days (mean difference (MD) -2.0 days, 95% CI -3.5 to -0.6) and 1.4 days (MD -1.4 days, 95% CI -2.8 to -0.0), respectively. Conventional chest physiotherapy and active cycle of breathing techniques did not.Positive expiratory pressure (versus no physiotherapy) reduced fever duration (MD -0.7 day, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.0). Osteopathic manipulative treatment did not.Osteopathic manipulative treatment (versus placebo) reduced the duration of intravenous (MD -2.1 days, 95% CI -3.4 to -0.9) and total antibiotic treatment (MD -1.9 days, 95% CI -3.1 to -0.7).Limitations of this review are that the studies addressing osteopathic manipulative treatment were small, and that six published studies which appear to meet the inclusion criteria are awaiting classification.
Based on current limited evidence, chest physiotherapy might not be recommended as routine additional treatment for pneumonia in adults.

1 Follower
 · 
161 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent medical literature has shown that there has been renewed interest focused on the small airways deep in the lung tissue. Although there is involvement of the distal airways at an early stage in mucus secreting lung diseases, no specific chest physical therapy (CPT) manoeuver has been proposed for small airways clearance. A four-tier classification of CPT has been established with identification of its benefits at each level of a monoalveolar respiratory tract model. The usual expiratory techniques directed towards the upper and middle respiratory tract are not applicable to the small airways and new paradigm is proposed appropriate to their specific mechanical characteristics. This comprises a slow resistive inspiratory manoeuver in the lateral position. Clinical auscultation of the lung is the cornerstone of the validation and follow-up of the technique.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Acute lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) (e.g. pneumonia) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality and management focuses on early treatment. Chest radiographs (X-rays) are one of the commonly used strategies. Although radiological facilities are easily accessible in high-income countries, access can be limited in low-income countries. The efficacy of chest radiographs as a tool in the management of acute LRTIs has not been determined. Although chest radiographs are used for both diagnosis and management, our review focuses only on management. To assess the effectiveness of chest radiographs in addition to clinical judgement, compared to clinical judgement alone, in the management of acute LRTIs in children and adults. We searched CENTRAL 2013, Issue 1; MEDLINE (1948 to January week 4, 2013); EMBASE (1974 to February 2013); CINAHL (1985 to February 2013) and LILACS (1985 to February 2013). We also searched NHS EED, DARE, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP (up to February 2013). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of chest radiographs versus no chest radiographs in acute LRTIs in children and adults. Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. A third review author compiled the findings and any discrepancies were discussed among all review authors. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Two RCTs involving 2024 patients (1502 adults and 522 children) were included in this review. Both RCTs excluded patients with suspected severe disease. It was not possible to pool the results due to incomplete data. Both included trials concluded that the use of chest radiographs did not result in a better clinical outcome (duration of illness and of symptoms) for patients with acute LRTIs. In the study involving children in South Africa, the median time to recovery was seven days (95% confidence interval (CI) six to eight days (radiograph group) and six to nine days (control group)), P value = 0.50, log-rank test) and the hazard ratio for recovery was 1.08 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.34). In the study with adult participants in the USA, the average duration of illness was 16.9 days versus 17.0 days (P value > 0.05) in the radiograph and no radiograph groups respectively. This result was not statistically significant and there were no significant differences in patient outcomes between the groups with or without chest radiograph.The study in adults also reports that chest radiographs did not affect the frequencies with which clinicians ordered return visits or antibiotics. However, there was a benefit of chest radiographs in a subgroup of the adult participants with an infiltrate on their radiograph, with a reduction in length of illness (16.2 days in the group allocated to chest radiographs and 22.6 in the non-chest radiograph group, P < 0.05), duration of cough (14.2 versus 21.3 days, P < 0.05) and duration of sputum production (8.5 versus 17.8 days, P < 0.05). The authors mention that this difference in outcome between the intervention and control group in this particular subgroup only was probably a result of "the higher proportion of patients treated with antibiotics when the radiograph was used in patient care".Hospitalisation rates were only reported in the study involving children and it was found that a higher proportion of patients in the radiograph group (4.7%) required hospitalisation compared to the control group (2.3%) with the result not being statistically significant (P = 0.14). None of the trials report the effect on mortality, complications of infection or adverse events from chest radiographs. Overall, the included studies had a low or unclear risk for blinding, attrition bias and reporting bias, but a high risk of selection bias. Both trials had strict exclusion criteria which is important but may limit the clinical practicability of the results as participants may not reflect those presenting in clinical practice. Data from two trials suggest that routine chest radiography does not affect the clinical outcomes in adults and children presenting to a hospital with signs and symptoms suggestive of a LRTI. This conclusion may be weakened by the risk of bias of the studies and the lack of complete data available.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 12/2013; 12(12):CD009119. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD009119.pub2 · 5.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This systematic review updated and extended the "UK evidence report" by Bronfort et al. (Chiropr Osteopath 18:3, 2010) with respect to conditions / interventions that received an 'inconclusive' or 'negative' evidence rating or were not covered in the report. A literature search of more than 10 general medical and specialised databases was conducted in August 2011 and updated in March 2013. Systematic reviews, primary comparative studies and qualitative studies of patients with musculoskeletal or non-musculoskeletal conditions treated with manual therapy and reporting clinical outcomes were included. Study quality was assessed using standardised instruments, studies were summarised, and the results were compared against the evidence ratings of Bronfort. These were either confirmed, updated, or new categories not assessed by Bronfort were added. 25,539 records were found; 178 new and additional studies were identified, of which 72 were systematic reviews, 96 were RCTs, and 10 were non-randomised primary studies. Most 'inconclusive' or 'moderate' evidence ratings of the UK evidence report were confirmed. Evidence ratings changed in a positive direction from inconclusive to moderate evidence ratings in only three cases (manipulation / mobilisation [with exercise] for rotator cuff disorder; spinal mobilisation for cervicogenic headache; and mobilisation for miscellaneous headache). In addition, evidence was identified on a large number of non-musculoskeletal conditions not previously considered; most of this evidence was rated as inconclusive. Overall, there was limited high quality evidence for the effectiveness of manual therapy. Most reviewed evidence was of low to moderate quality and inconsistent due to substantial methodological and clinical diversity. Areas requiring further research are highlighted.
    03/2014; 22(1):12. DOI:10.1186/2045-709X-22-12