囊性纤维化的呼吸肌训练。

Gemma Stanford, Harrigan Ryan, Arturo Solis-Moya
{"title":"囊性纤维化的呼吸肌训练。","authors":"Gemma Stanford, Harrigan Ryan, Arturo Solis-Moya","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD006112.pub5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cystic fibrosis is the most common autosomal recessive disease in white populations, and causes respiratory dysfunction in the majority of individuals. Numerous types of respiratory muscle training to improve respiratory function and health-related quality of life in people with cystic fibrosis have been reported in the literature. Hence a systematic review of the literature is needed to establish the effectiveness of respiratory muscle training (either inspiratory or expiratory muscle training) on clinical outcomes in cystic fibrosis. This is an update of a previously published review.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine the effectiveness of respiratory muscle training on clinical outcomes in people with cystic fibrosis.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials register comprising of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. Date of most recent search: 11 June 2020. A hand search of the Journal of Cystic Fibrosis and Pediatric Pulmonology was performed, along with an electronic search of online trial databases. Date of most recent search: 05 October 2020.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>Randomised controlled studies comparing respiratory muscle training with a control group in people with cystic fibrosis.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>Review authors independently selected articles for inclusion, evaluated the methodological quality of the studies, and extracted data. Additional information was sought from trial authors where necessary. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE system.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>Authors identified 20 studies, of which 10 studies with 238 participants met the review's inclusion criteria. There was wide variation in the methodological and written quality of the included studies. Four of the 10 included studies were published as abstracts only and lacked concise details, thus limiting the information available. Eight studies were parallel studies and two of a cross-over design. Respiratory muscle training interventions varied dramatically, with frequency, intensity and duration ranging from thrice weekly to twice daily, 20% to 80% of maximal effort, and 10 to 30 minutes, respectively. Participant numbers ranged from 11 to 39 participants in the included studies; five studies were in adults only, one in children only and four in a combination of children and adults. No differences between treatment and control were reported in the primary outcome of pulmonary function (forced expiratory volume in one second and forced vital capacity) or postural stability (very low-quality evidence). Although no change was reported in exercise capacity as assessed by the maximum rate of oxygen use and distance completed in a six minute walk test, a 10% improvement in exercise duration was found when working at 60% of maximal effort in one study (n = 20) (very low-quality evidence). In a further study (n = 18), when working at 80% of maximal effort, health-related quality of life improved in the mastery and emotion domains (very low-quality evidence). With regards to the review's secondary outcomes, one study (n = 11) found a change in intramural pressure, functional residual capacity and maximal inspiratory pressure following training (very low-quality evidence). Another study (n=36) reported improvements in maximal inspiratory pressure following training (P < 0.001) (very low-quality evidence). A further study (n = 22) reported that respiratory muscle endurance was longer in the training group (P < 0.01). No studies reported significant differences on any other secondary outcomes. Meta-analyses could not be performed due to a lack of consistency and insufficient detail in reported outcome measures.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>There is insufficient evidence to suggest whether this intervention is beneficial or not. Healthcare practitioners should consider the use of respiratory muscle training on a case-by-case basis. Further research of reputable methodological quality is needed to determine the effectiveness of respiratory muscle training in people with cystic fibrosis. Researchers should consider the following clinical outcomes in future studies; respiratory muscle function, pulmonary function, exercise capacity, hospital admissions, and health-related quality of life. Sensory-perceptual changes, such as respiratory effort sensation (e.g. rating of perceived breathlessness) and peripheral effort sensation (e.g. rating of perceived exertion) may also help to elucidate mechanisms underpinning the effectiveness of respiratory muscle training.</p>","PeriodicalId":515753,"journal":{"name":"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews","volume":" ","pages":"CD006112"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8406523/pdf/CD006112.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Respiratory muscle training for cystic fibrosis.\",\"authors\":\"Gemma Stanford, Harrigan Ryan, Arturo Solis-Moya\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/14651858.CD006112.pub5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cystic fibrosis is the most common autosomal recessive disease in white populations, and causes respiratory dysfunction in the majority of individuals. Numerous types of respiratory muscle training to improve respiratory function and health-related quality of life in people with cystic fibrosis have been reported in the literature. Hence a systematic review of the literature is needed to establish the effectiveness of respiratory muscle training (either inspiratory or expiratory muscle training) on clinical outcomes in cystic fibrosis. This is an update of a previously published review.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine the effectiveness of respiratory muscle training on clinical outcomes in people with cystic fibrosis.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials register comprising of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. Date of most recent search: 11 June 2020. A hand search of the Journal of Cystic Fibrosis and Pediatric Pulmonology was performed, along with an electronic search of online trial databases. Date of most recent search: 05 October 2020.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>Randomised controlled studies comparing respiratory muscle training with a control group in people with cystic fibrosis.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>Review authors independently selected articles for inclusion, evaluated the methodological quality of the studies, and extracted data. Additional information was sought from trial authors where necessary. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE system.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>Authors identified 20 studies, of which 10 studies with 238 participants met the review's inclusion criteria. There was wide variation in the methodological and written quality of the included studies. Four of the 10 included studies were published as abstracts only and lacked concise details, thus limiting the information available. Eight studies were parallel studies and two of a cross-over design. Respiratory muscle training interventions varied dramatically, with frequency, intensity and duration ranging from thrice weekly to twice daily, 20% to 80% of maximal effort, and 10 to 30 minutes, respectively. Participant numbers ranged from 11 to 39 participants in the included studies; five studies were in adults only, one in children only and four in a combination of children and adults. No differences between treatment and control were reported in the primary outcome of pulmonary function (forced expiratory volume in one second and forced vital capacity) or postural stability (very low-quality evidence). Although no change was reported in exercise capacity as assessed by the maximum rate of oxygen use and distance completed in a six minute walk test, a 10% improvement in exercise duration was found when working at 60% of maximal effort in one study (n = 20) (very low-quality evidence). In a further study (n = 18), when working at 80% of maximal effort, health-related quality of life improved in the mastery and emotion domains (very low-quality evidence). With regards to the review's secondary outcomes, one study (n = 11) found a change in intramural pressure, functional residual capacity and maximal inspiratory pressure following training (very low-quality evidence). Another study (n=36) reported improvements in maximal inspiratory pressure following training (P < 0.001) (very low-quality evidence). A further study (n = 22) reported that respiratory muscle endurance was longer in the training group (P < 0.01). No studies reported significant differences on any other secondary outcomes. Meta-analyses could not be performed due to a lack of consistency and insufficient detail in reported outcome measures.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>There is insufficient evidence to suggest whether this intervention is beneficial or not. Healthcare practitioners should consider the use of respiratory muscle training on a case-by-case basis. Further research of reputable methodological quality is needed to determine the effectiveness of respiratory muscle training in people with cystic fibrosis. Researchers should consider the following clinical outcomes in future studies; respiratory muscle function, pulmonary function, exercise capacity, hospital admissions, and health-related quality of life. Sensory-perceptual changes, such as respiratory effort sensation (e.g. rating of perceived breathlessness) and peripheral effort sensation (e.g. rating of perceived exertion) may also help to elucidate mechanisms underpinning the effectiveness of respiratory muscle training.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":515753,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"CD006112\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8406523/pdf/CD006112.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006112.pub5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006112.pub5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:囊性纤维化是白人人群中最常见的常染色体隐性遗传病,在大多数个体中可引起呼吸功能障碍。许多类型的呼吸肌训练可以改善囊性纤维化患者的呼吸功能和健康相关的生活质量。因此,需要对文献进行系统回顾,以确定呼吸肌训练(吸气肌或呼气肌训练)对囊性纤维化临床结果的有效性。这是对先前发表的综述的更新。目的:探讨呼吸肌肉训练对囊性纤维化患者临床预后的影响。检索方法:我们检索了Cochrane囊性纤维化和遗传疾病组试验注册,包括从综合电子数据库检索和手工检索相关期刊和会议记录摘要书籍中确定的参考文献。最近检索日期:2020年6月11日。手工检索了《囊性纤维化和儿科肺病学杂志》,同时对在线试验数据库进行了电子检索。最近检索日期:2020年10月5日。选择标准:随机对照研究比较呼吸肌训练与囊性纤维化患者对照组。数据收集和分析:综述作者独立选择纳入的文章,评估研究的方法学质量,并提取数据。必要时向试验作者索取了额外资料。使用GRADE系统评估证据的质量。主要结果:作者确定了20项研究,其中10项研究238名受试者符合本综述的纳入标准。纳入研究的方法学和写作质量存在很大差异。纳入的10项研究中有4项仅作为摘要发表,缺乏简明的细节,从而限制了可获得的信息。8项研究为平行研究,2项为交叉研究。呼吸肌训练干预措施变化很大,频率、强度和持续时间从每周三次到每天两次,分别为最大努力的20%到80%,10到30分钟。纳入研究的参与者人数从11到39人不等;五项研究仅针对成人,一项仅针对儿童,四项针对儿童和成人。治疗组和对照组在肺功能(一秒用力呼气量和用力肺活量)或体位稳定性(极低质量证据)的主要结局方面没有差异。尽管在6分钟步行测试中,通过最大耗氧率和完成的距离评估的运动能力没有变化,但在一项研究中(n = 20),当以最大努力的60%工作时,发现运动时间有10%的改善(非常低质量的证据)。在进一步的研究中(n = 18),当以最大努力的80%工作时,与健康相关的生活质量在掌握和情绪领域得到改善(非常低质量的证据)。关于本综述的次要结局,一项研究(n = 11)发现训练后的内压、功能剩余容量和最大吸气压力发生了变化(证据质量非常低)。另一项研究(n=36)报告了训练后最大吸气压力的改善(P < 0.001)(非常低质量的证据)。进一步的研究(n = 22)报道训练组的呼吸肌耐力更长(P < 0.01)。没有研究报告其他次要结果有显著差异。由于报告的结果测量缺乏一致性和不够详细,因此无法进行meta分析。作者的结论是:没有足够的证据表明这种干预是否有益。保健医生应考虑使用呼吸肌训练的个案基础上。为了确定呼吸肌肉训练对囊性纤维化患者的有效性,需要进一步的研究。在未来的研究中,研究人员应考虑以下临床结果:呼吸肌功能、肺功能、运动能力、住院率和健康相关生活质量。感觉知觉的变化,如呼吸力量感(如感知呼吸困难的等级)和外周力量感(如感知用力的等级)也可能有助于阐明支持呼吸肌训练有效性的机制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Respiratory muscle training for cystic fibrosis.

Background: Cystic fibrosis is the most common autosomal recessive disease in white populations, and causes respiratory dysfunction in the majority of individuals. Numerous types of respiratory muscle training to improve respiratory function and health-related quality of life in people with cystic fibrosis have been reported in the literature. Hence a systematic review of the literature is needed to establish the effectiveness of respiratory muscle training (either inspiratory or expiratory muscle training) on clinical outcomes in cystic fibrosis. This is an update of a previously published review.

Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of respiratory muscle training on clinical outcomes in people with cystic fibrosis.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials register comprising of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. Date of most recent search: 11 June 2020. A hand search of the Journal of Cystic Fibrosis and Pediatric Pulmonology was performed, along with an electronic search of online trial databases. Date of most recent search: 05 October 2020.

Selection criteria: Randomised controlled studies comparing respiratory muscle training with a control group in people with cystic fibrosis.

Data collection and analysis: Review authors independently selected articles for inclusion, evaluated the methodological quality of the studies, and extracted data. Additional information was sought from trial authors where necessary. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE system.

Main results: Authors identified 20 studies, of which 10 studies with 238 participants met the review's inclusion criteria. There was wide variation in the methodological and written quality of the included studies. Four of the 10 included studies were published as abstracts only and lacked concise details, thus limiting the information available. Eight studies were parallel studies and two of a cross-over design. Respiratory muscle training interventions varied dramatically, with frequency, intensity and duration ranging from thrice weekly to twice daily, 20% to 80% of maximal effort, and 10 to 30 minutes, respectively. Participant numbers ranged from 11 to 39 participants in the included studies; five studies were in adults only, one in children only and four in a combination of children and adults. No differences between treatment and control were reported in the primary outcome of pulmonary function (forced expiratory volume in one second and forced vital capacity) or postural stability (very low-quality evidence). Although no change was reported in exercise capacity as assessed by the maximum rate of oxygen use and distance completed in a six minute walk test, a 10% improvement in exercise duration was found when working at 60% of maximal effort in one study (n = 20) (very low-quality evidence). In a further study (n = 18), when working at 80% of maximal effort, health-related quality of life improved in the mastery and emotion domains (very low-quality evidence). With regards to the review's secondary outcomes, one study (n = 11) found a change in intramural pressure, functional residual capacity and maximal inspiratory pressure following training (very low-quality evidence). Another study (n=36) reported improvements in maximal inspiratory pressure following training (P < 0.001) (very low-quality evidence). A further study (n = 22) reported that respiratory muscle endurance was longer in the training group (P < 0.01). No studies reported significant differences on any other secondary outcomes. Meta-analyses could not be performed due to a lack of consistency and insufficient detail in reported outcome measures.

Authors' conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to suggest whether this intervention is beneficial or not. Healthcare practitioners should consider the use of respiratory muscle training on a case-by-case basis. Further research of reputable methodological quality is needed to determine the effectiveness of respiratory muscle training in people with cystic fibrosis. Researchers should consider the following clinical outcomes in future studies; respiratory muscle function, pulmonary function, exercise capacity, hospital admissions, and health-related quality of life. Sensory-perceptual changes, such as respiratory effort sensation (e.g. rating of perceived breathlessness) and peripheral effort sensation (e.g. rating of perceived exertion) may also help to elucidate mechanisms underpinning the effectiveness of respiratory muscle training.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信