Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Stosowanie ogrzewanego i nawilżanego powietrza podczas przeziębienia

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001728.pub6Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 29 agosto 2017see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Infecciones respiratorias agudas

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2017 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

  • Meenu Singh

    Correspondencia a: Department of Pediatrics, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India

    [email protected]

  • Manvi Singh

    Department of Pediatrics, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India

  • Nishant Jaiswal

    ICMR Advanced Centre for Evidence‐Based Child Health, Advanced Pediatrics Centre, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India

  • Anil Chauhan

    ICMR Advanced Centre for Evidence‐Based Child Health, Advanced Pediatrics Centre, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India

Contributions of authors

Meenu Singh was the sole author of this review and subsequent updates until 2005. The 2011 and 2013 updates were conducted by Meenu Singh and Manvi Singh.

The current update (2017) was conducted by Meenu Singh (MeS), Manvi Singh (MaS), Nishant Jaiswal (NJ), and Anil Chauhan (AC).

Roles and responsibilities

Task

Undertaken by

Review stage: select which trials to include

NJ, AC, MeS

Review stage: extract data from trials

MaS, MeS

Review stage: enter data into Review Manager 5

NJ, AC

Review stage: carry out the analysis

MaS, MeS

Review stage: interpret the analysis

MaS, MeS

Review stage: draft the final review

MeS, AC, NJ, MaS

Update stage: update the review

MeS, AC, NJ, MaS

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.

External sources

  • eHealth Project, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, India.

    Financial Support to Poonam Chaudhary, B. Lib. Information specialist.

Declarations of interest

Meenu Singh: none known.
Manvi Singh: none known.
Nishant Jaiswal: none known.
Anil Chauhan: none known.

Acknowledgements

The Library Service, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India. We thank Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Information Specialist David Honeyman for database searching and Managing Editor Liz Dooley and Assistant Managing Editor Ann Jones for editorial assistance. We would also like to acknowledge Michael Macknin for sharing study funding details.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2017 Aug 29

Heated, humidified air for the common cold

Review

Meenu Singh, Manvi Singh, Nishant Jaiswal, Anil Chauhan

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001728.pub6

2013 Jun 04

Heated, humidified air for the common cold

Review

Meenu Singh, Manvi Singh

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001728.pub5

2011 May 11

Heated, humidified air for the common cold

Review

Meenu Singh, Manvi Singh

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001728.pub4

2006 Jul 19

Heated, humidified air for the common cold

Review

Meenu Singh

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001728.pub3

2004 Apr 19

Heated, humidified air for the common cold

Review

Meenu Singh

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001728.pub2

2001 Jul 27

Heated, humidified air for the common cold

Review

Meenu Singh

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001728

Differences between protocol and review

In this 2017 update, we moved the secondary outcome "Number of participants with no symptoms" to the primary outcomes and rephrased it as "Number of participants with subjective response: therapy did not help" because we believed it addressed an important question ​about the​ efficacy of heated, humidified air. We also rephrased the secondary outcome "Decrease in viral culture titre in the nasal secretions" to " Number of participants with a positive viral culture in the nasal washings", as it added clarity for the readers about what exactly is reported in the review.

Notes

The original version of this review, Singh 1999, was submitted to the Cochrane Library as a review; no Cochrane Review protocol was published. The initial protocol and review were conducted for presentation at an acute respiratory infection conference held in Canberra, Australia.

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.

Study flow diagram for 2017 update.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram for 2017 update.

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Comparison 1 Rhinothermy versus control, Outcome 1 Number of participants with persistent symptoms.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Rhinothermy versus control, Outcome 1 Number of participants with persistent symptoms.

Comparison 1 Rhinothermy versus control, Outcome 2 Number of participants with subjective response to therapy: therapy did not help.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Rhinothermy versus control, Outcome 2 Number of participants with subjective response to therapy: therapy did not help.

Comparison 1 Rhinothermy versus control, Outcome 3 Number of participants with positive nasal wash culture.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Rhinothermy versus control, Outcome 3 Number of participants with positive nasal wash culture.

Comparison 1 Rhinothermy versus control, Outcome 4 Subjective response: side effects were present.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Rhinothermy versus control, Outcome 4 Subjective response: side effects were present.

Comparison 2 Rhinothermy versus control (random‐effects model), Outcome 1 Number of participants with persistent symptoms.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Rhinothermy versus control (random‐effects model), Outcome 1 Number of participants with persistent symptoms.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Heated, humidified air compared to control for treating the common cold

Heated, humidified air compared to control for treating the common cold

Patient or population: People with the common cold
Setting: Clinics, university communities, general practice
Intervention: Heated, humidified air administered using a RhinoTherm device
Comparison: Ambient air heated to 20 °C to 30 °C at various flow rates

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No. of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with control

Risk with rhinothermy

Reduction in the clinical severity of the common cold (measured by decrease in the symptom score index)

Study population

Fixed‐effect model

OR 0.30
(0.16 to 0.56)

Random‐effects model

OR 0.22 (0.03 to 1.95)

149
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 1 2

The significance of the effect is uncertain because use of the fixed‐effect model produces a different result than use of the random‐effects model.

681 per 1000

Fixed‐effect model

390 per 1000
(254 to 544)

Random‐effects model

319 per 1000

(60 to 806)

Number of participants with the subjective response: therapy did not help

Study population

OR 0.58
(0.28 to 1.18)

124
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 3 4

We downgraded the evidence for risk of bias and imprecision.

524 per 1000

389 per 1000
(235 to 565)

Number of participants with positive nasal wash cultures

Study population

OR 0.47
(0.04 to 5.19)

20
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 5 6

We downgraded the evidence for risk of bias and imprecision.

900 per 1000

809 per 1000
(265 to 979)

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: confidence interval; OR: odds ratio; RCT: randomised controlled trial

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

1Ophir 1987 had high attrition rates; Tyrrell 1989b did not perform allocation concealment.
2Downgraded for inconsistency.
3Forstall 1994 and Macknin 1990 did not clearly describe randomisation and allocation concealment methods.
4Downgraded one point for imprecision.
5Hendley 1994 did not clearly state randomisation and allocation methods. Downgraded one point.
6Downgraded one point for imprecision.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Heated, humidified air compared to control for treating the common cold
Comparison 1. Rhinothermy versus control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number of participants with persistent symptoms Show forest plot

2

149

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.30 [0.16, 0.56]

1.1 Number of participants with persistent symptoms at the end of therapy

2

149

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.30 [0.16, 0.56]

2 Number of participants with subjective response to therapy: therapy did not help Show forest plot

2

124

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.58 [0.28, 1.18]

3 Number of participants with positive nasal wash culture Show forest plot

1

20

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.47 [0.04, 5.19]

4 Subjective response: side effects were present Show forest plot

1

65

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.73 [1.46, 15.30]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Rhinothermy versus control
Comparison 2. Rhinothermy versus control (random‐effects model)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number of participants with persistent symptoms Show forest plot

2

149

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.22 [0.03, 1.95]

1.1 Number of participants with persistent symptoms at the end of the therapy

2

149

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.22 [0.03, 1.95]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Rhinothermy versus control (random‐effects model)