Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

استفاده از فیزیوتراپی در مقایسه با عدم فیزیوتراپی قفسه سینه برای فیبروز سیستیک

Esta versión no es la más reciente

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001401.pub3Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 21 diciembre 2015see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Fibrosis quística y enfermedades genéticas

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2015 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Louise Warnock

    Correspondencia a: Oxford Adult Cystic Fibrosis Centre, Oxford Centre for Respiratory Medicine, The Churchill Hospital, Oxford, UK

    [email protected]

  • Alison Gates

    Oxford Adult Cystic Fibrosis Centre, Oxford Centre for Respiratory Medicine, The Churchill Hospital, Oxford, UK

Contributions of authors

Original review

Ammani Prasad and Eleanor Main independently assessed studies for inclusion in this review and assisted in writing of text. Cees van der Schans acted as guarantor of the review.

Updates from 2013

Alison Gates and Louise Warnock independently assessed studies for inclusion in this review, re‐assessed the risk of bias of the included studies and updated the text to include two additional studies (Elkins 2005; Jarad 2010).

Cees van der Schans commented on a draft of the updated review.

Updates from 2015

Cees van der Schans has stepped down from the author team.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • No sources of support supplied

External sources

  • National Institute for Health Research, UK.

    This systematic review was supported by the National Institute for Health Research, via Cochrane Infrastructure funding to the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group.

Declarations of interest

None known.

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the work of Cees van der Schans in leading on the original protocol and review and also his contribution to subsequent updates until 2015.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2023 Apr 12

Airway clearance techniques compared to no airway clearance techniques for cystic fibrosis

Review

Louise Warnock, Alison Gates

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001401.pub4

2015 Dec 21

Chest physiotherapy compared to no chest physiotherapy for cystic fibrosis

Review

Louise Warnock, Alison Gates

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001401.pub3

2013 Sep 04

Chest physiotherapy compared to no chest physiotherapy for cystic fibrosis

Review

Louise Warnock, Alison Gates, Cees P van der Schans

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001401.pub2

2000 Apr 24

Chest physiotherapy compared to no chest physiotherapy for cystic fibrosis

Review

Cees P van der Schans, Ammani Prasad, Eleanor Main

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001401

Differences between protocol and review

The Methods section has been updated in light of new guidance and functionality of RevMan 5.1 (Review Manager 2011).

The secondary outcome of patient preference was added during the 2013 review update as it is generally accepted that patient satisfaction or preference for airway clearance techniques is an important factor in treatment selection when considering likely adherence to treatment.

Keywords

MeSH

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.