Yang Ming, Yuping Yan, Yin Xiangli, Wang Bin Y, Wu Taixiang, Liu Guan J, Dong Bi Rong
Department of Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37, Guo Xue Xiang, Chengdu, Sichuan, China, 610041.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Feb 17(2):CD006338. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006338.pub2.
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 the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 3); MEDLINE (1966 to August 2009); EMBASE (1974 to August 2009); CBM (1978 to August 2009); the National Research Register (August 2009) and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) (1929 to August 2009).
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 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 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 the six published studies which appear to meet the inclusion criteria are awaiting classification.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on current limited evidence, chest physiotherapy might not be recommended as routine adjunctive treatment for pneumonia in adults.
尽管证据存在矛盾,但胸部物理治疗已被广泛用作成人肺炎的辅助治疗方法。
评估胸部物理治疗对成人肺炎的有效性和安全性。
我们检索了Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)(《Cochrane图书馆》2009年第3期);MEDLINE(1966年至2009年8月);EMBASE(1974年至2009年8月);中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)(1978年至2009年8月);国家研究注册库(2009年8月)以及物理治疗证据数据库(PEDro)(1929年至2009年8月)。
评估胸部物理治疗对成人肺炎治疗效果的随机对照试验(RCT)。
两位作者独立评估试验的合格性,提取数据并评价试验质量。主要结局指标为死亡率和治愈率。在数据分析中,我们对各个试验结果使用风险比(RR)和均值差(MD)。我们进行了荟萃分析,并以95%置信区间(CI)衡量所有结局指标。
六项RCT(434名参与者)评估了四种类型的胸部物理治疗(传统胸部物理治疗;整骨手法治疗(包括椎旁抑制、肋骨提升和肌筋膜松解);主动呼吸循环技术(包括主动呼吸控制、胸廓扩张运动和用力呼气技术);以及呼气末正压)。没有一种物理治疗方法(与不进行物理治疗或使用安慰剂相比)能改善成人肺炎患者的死亡率。传统胸部物理治疗(与不进行物理治疗相比)、主动呼吸循环技术(与不进行物理治疗相比)以及整骨手法治疗(与安慰剂相比)均未提高治愈率或胸部X线改善率。整骨手法治疗(与安慰剂相比)和呼气末正压(与不进行物理治疗相比)分别使平均住院时间缩短了2.0天(均值差(MD)-2.0天,95%CI -3.5至-0.6)和1.4天(MD -1.4天,95%CI -2.8至-0.0)。传统胸部物理治疗和主动呼吸循环技术则没有。呼气末正压(与不进行物理治疗相比)缩短了发热持续时间(MD -0.7天,95%CI -1.4至-0.0)。整骨手法治疗则没有。整骨手法治疗(与安慰剂相比)缩短了静脉输液时间(MD -2.1天,95%CI -3.4至-0.9)和总抗生素治疗时间(MD -1.9天,95%CI -3.1至-0.7)。本综述的局限性在于涉及整骨手法治疗的研究规模较小,且六项似乎符合纳入标准的已发表研究正在等待分类。
基于目前有限的证据,不建议将胸部物理治疗作为成人肺炎的常规辅助治疗方法。