Patel 2013.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods | RCT. Parallel design. |
|
| Participants | 18 participants randomised to Metaneb®, 14 participants randomised to HFCWO. All admitted to hospital for management of a severe pulmonary exacerbation. Age, median (range): 29 (19 ‐ 48) years. BMI, mean: 22.3 kg/m². FEV1 % predicted, mean: 41.4%. |
|
| Interventions |
Intervention 1: Metaneb® over a 14‐day period of hospitalisation. Intervention 2: HFCWO over a 14‐day period of hospitalisation. Frequency and duration of each treatment not identified. |
|
| Outcomes | Participant satisfaction, sputum expectorated, spirometry and CFQ‐R. | |
| Notes | Await publication of full paper and authors contacted for further data for inclusion in analysis. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Described as randomised but generation of sequence not described. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not discussed. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Not discussed. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | High risk | 13 drop outs identified with reason of haemoptysis given for 3 participants. Haemoptysis necessitating cessation of ACT occurred in 1 (12.5%) Metaneb participant and 2 (40%) HFCC participants.No information given on remaining 10 drop outs. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | Abstract only, not possible to compare protocol with full paper. |
| Other bias | Unclear risk | Abstract only. |