Summary of findings for the main comparison. Ambulatory oxygen versus air in interstitial lung disease.
| 'Summary of findings' table 1: ambulatory oxygen versus air in interstitial lung disease (ILD) | ||||||
| Participant or population: people with ILD Setting: Outpatient clinics and the community Intervention: ambulatory oxygen Comparison: placebo air | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Number of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with air | Risk with ambulatory oxygen | |||||
| 6‐minute walk test distance (6MWT) (m) | The mean 6MWT (m) was 387 | The mean 6MWT (m) in the intervention group was 13 metres more (36.58 fewer to 62.58 more) | — | 20 (1 RCT) |
⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2 | Single small cross‐over study (Nishiyama 2013). |
| Endurance shuttle walk test (ESWT) (m) | The mean ESWT (m) was 855 | The mean ESWT (m) in the intervention group was 265 metres more (58.39 fewer to 588.39 more) | — | 6 (1 RCT) |
⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2 | Single small cross‐over study (Troy 2014). |
| Dyspnoea (modified Borg score) Higher scores show worse dyspnoea. |
The mean dyspnoea (modified Borg score) was 6.2 | The mean dyspnoea (modified Borg score) in the intervention group was 0.4 units fewer (1.76 fewer to 0.96 more) | — | 20 (1 RCT) |
⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2 | Single small cross‐over study (Nishiyama 2013). 6/20 participants had clinically important improvements in their Borg dyspnoea scale (> 1 point) after the standardised 6MWT with oxygen, however 4/20 reported worsening of their dyspnoea (> 1 point) with oxygen. Troy 2014 reported no difference in Borg dyspnoea score with oxygen compared to air. |
| Endurance time on constant load ergometry (s) | The mean endurance time (s) was 427.8 | The mean endurance time in the intervention group was 118.7 seconds more (23.9 more to 213.5 more) | — | 72 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2 | Single cross‐over study (Arizono 2015). |
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% CI) 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; RR: risk ratio; OR: odds ratio; GRADE: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation; RCT: randomised controlled trial; ILD: interstitial lung disease. | ||||||
| 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 | ||||||
1Downgraded by one for imprecision: there were wide CIs. 2Downgraded by one for indirectness: the oxygen used in this study did not correct exertional desaturation.