| Methods |
Double blind, placebo controlled, randomised crossover study |
| Participants |
20 participants with IPF and exertional desaturation to < 88% on 6MWT in room air. Exclusion criteria were resting hypoxaemia and an inability to complete exercise testing |
| Interventions |
Ambulatory oxygen versus ambulatory air via portable cylinder at 4 L/min using a demand system |
| Outcomes |
Distance at 6MWT |
| Notes |
Conducted in hospital respiratory physiology laboratory in Osaka, Japan |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Randomisation was by coin toss |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Crossover design negates this |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
"...each cylinder was covered with an identical sack so that the subjects and physicians remained blinded to the treatment group." |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
"...baseline oxygen saturation and heart rate were recorded by the coordinator; these results were concealed from the physicians who performed the tests." |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
All participants completed testing |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Low risk |
The study authors reported all data |
