| Comparison 4. Inspiratory muscle training (80% of maximal effort) programme compared to usual care for cystic fibrosis | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Usual care | Inspiratory muscle training (IMT) (80% of maximal effort) programme | |||||
| Change in FEV1% (litres) Scale from: 0 to 100. Follow-up: 2 to 6 months | The mean change in FEV1 (litres) in the control group was 2 | The mean change in FEV1% (litres) in the IMT groups was 0 higher (0.9 lower to 0.9 higher) | 19 (Enright 2004) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1 | ||
| Change in FVC (litres) Scale from: 0 to 100. Follow-up: 2 to 6 months | The mean change in FEV1 (litres) in the control group was 3 | The mean change in FVC (litres) in the IMT groups was 0.1 higher (0.9 lower to 1.1 higher) | 19 (Enright 2004) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2 | ||
| VO2 peak | No evidence was found | |||||
| Time to next exacerbation | No evidence was found | |||||
| Body composition | No evidence was found | |||||
| Quality of life | No evidence was found | |||||
| Preference for training programme | No evidence was found | |||||
| Adverse events | No evidence was found | |||||
The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (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).
Abbreviations: CI: confidence interval; CF: cystic fibrosis; FEV1: forced expiratory volume in 1 second; FVC: forced vital capacity; IMT: inspiratory muscle training; MD: mean difference
The quality of the evidence was downgraded by 2 because of high risk of bias in relation to blinding (performance bias and detection bias), and unclear risk of bias in relation to random sequence generation, allocation concealment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other bias.
The quality of the evidence was downgraded by 2 because the 95% CI crossed 2 default MIDs
From: 10, Other monitoring, assessment and management
NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.