Chest physiotherapy for pneumonia in adults

Xiaomei Chen; Jiaojiao Jiang; Renjie Wang; Hongbo Fu; Jing Lu; Ming Yang

doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006338.pub4

. 2022 Sep 6;2022(9):CD006338. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006338.pub4

Chest physiotherapy for pneumonia in adults

Xiaomei Chen ¹, Jiaojiao Jiang ², Renjie Wang ², Hongbo Fu ³, Jing Lu ⁴, Ming Yang ^3,^✉

Editor: Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group

PMCID: PMC9447368 PMID: 36066373

Abstract

Background

Despite conflicting evidence, chest physiotherapy has been widely used as an adjunctive treatment for adults with pneumonia. This is an update of a review first published in 2010 and updated in 2013.

Objectives

To assess the effectiveness and safety of chest physiotherapy for pneumonia in adults.

Search methods

We updated our searches in the following databases to May 2022: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via OvidSP, MEDLINE via OvidSP (from 1966), Embase via embase.com (from 1974), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) (from 1929), CINAHL via EBSCO (from 2009), and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (from 1978).

Selection criteria

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi‐RCTs assessing the efficacy of chest physiotherapy for treating pneumonia in adults.

Data collection and analysis

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

Main results

We included two new trials in this update (540 participants), for a total of eight RCTs (974 participants). Four RCTs were conducted in the United States, two in Sweden, one in China, and one in the United Kingdom. The studies looked at five types of chest physiotherapy: conventional chest physiotherapy; osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT, which includes paraspinal inhibition, rib raising, and myofascial release); active cycle of breathing techniques (which includes active breathing control, thoracic expansion exercises, and forced expiration techniques); positive expiratory pressure; and high‐frequency chest wall oscillation.

We assessed four trials as at unclear risk of bias and four trials as at high risk of bias.

Conventional chest physiotherapy (versus no physiotherapy) may have little to no effect on improving mortality, but the certainty of evidence is very low (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 7.13; 2 trials, 225 participants; I² = 0%). OMT (versus placebo) may have little to no effect on improving mortality, but the certainty of evidence is very low (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.50; 3 trials, 327 participants; I² = 0%). Similarly, high‐frequency chest wall oscillation (versus no physiotherapy) may also have little to no effect on improving mortality, but the certainty of evidence is very low (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.29; 1 trial, 286 participants).

Conventional chest physiotherapy (versus no physiotherapy) may have little to no effect on improving cure rate, but the certainty of evidence is very low (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.55; 2 trials, 225 participants; I² = 85%). Active cycle of breathing techniques (versus no physiotherapy) may have little to no effect on improving cure rate, but the certainty of evidence is very low (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.23; 1 trial, 32 participants). OMT (versus placebo) may improve cure rate, but the certainty of evidence is very low (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.51; 2 trials, 79 participants; I² = 0%).

OMT (versus placebo) may have little to no effect on mean duration of hospital stay, but the certainty of evidence is very low (mean difference (MD) −1.08 days, 95% CI −2.39 to 0.23; 3 trials, 333 participants; I² = 50%). Conventional chest physiotherapy (versus no physiotherapy, MD 0.7 days, 95% CI −1.39 to 2.79; 1 trial, 54 participants) and active cycle of breathing techniques (versus no physiotherapy, MD 1.4 days, 95% CI −0.69 to 3.49; 1 trial, 32 participants) may also have little to no effect on duration of hospital stay, but the certainty of evidence is very low. Positive expiratory pressure (versus no physiotherapy) may reduce the mean duration of hospital stay by 1.4 days, but the certainty of evidence is very low (MD −1.4 days, 95% CI −2.77 to −0.03; 1 trial, 98 participants).

Positive expiratory pressure (versus no physiotherapy) may reduce the duration of fever by 0.7 days, but the certainty of evidence is very low (MD −0.7 days, 95% CI −1.36 to −0.04; 1 trial, 98 participants). Conventional chest physiotherapy (versus no physiotherapy, MD 0.4 days, 95% CI −1.01 to 1.81; 1 trial, 54 participants) and OMT (versus placebo, MD 0.6 days, 95% CI −1.60 to 2.80; 1 trial, 21 participants) may have little to no effect on duration of fever, but the certainty of evidence is very low.

OMT (versus placebo) may have little to no effect on the mean duration of total antibiotic therapy, but the certainty of evidence is very low (MD −1.07 days, 95% CI −2.37 to 0.23; 3 trials, 333 participants; I² = 61%). Active cycle of breathing techniques (versus no physiotherapy) may have little to no effect on duration of total antibiotic therapy, but the certainty of evidence is very low (MD 0.2 days, 95% CI −4.39 to 4.69; 1 trial, 32 participants).

High‐frequency chest wall oscillation plus fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage (versus fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage alone) may reduce the MD of intensive care unit (ICU) stay by 3.8 days (MD −3.8 days, 95% CI −5.00 to −2.60; 1 trial, 286 participants) and the MD of mechanical ventilation by three days (MD −3 days, 95% CI −3.68 to −2.32; 1 trial, 286 participants), but the certainty of evidence is very low.

One trial reported transient muscle tenderness emerging after OMT in two participants. In another trial, three serious adverse events led to early withdrawal after OMT. One trial reported no adverse events after positive expiratory pressure treatment.

Limitations of this review were the small sample size and unclear or high risk of bias of the included trials.

Authors' conclusions

Keywords: Adult; Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use; Physical Therapy Modalities; Physical Therapy Modalities/adverse effects; Pneumonia; Pneumonia/therapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; Respiratory Therapy; Respiratory Therapy/adverse effects

Plain language summary

Chest physiotherapy for pneumonia in adults

Review question

Is chest physiotherapy effective and safe as a supportive treatment for adults with pneumonia?

Background

Pneumonia is one of the most common health problems affecting all age groups around the world. Antibiotics represent the mainstay of pneumonia treatment, whilst some other supportive therapies, such as supplementary oxygen, might also be beneficial in improving patient outcomes. Chest physiotherapy, an airway clearance technique, has been widely used as a supportive therapy for pneumonia in adults without reliable evidence.

Search date

The evidence is current to May 2022.

Study characteristics

We included eight studies involving a total of 974 participants. We included two new studies (540 participants) in this update. All studies included hospitalised patients. The studies looked at five types of chest physiotherapy, namely conventional chest physiotherapy (manual handling techniques to help clear sputum), active cycle of breathing techniques (a set of breathing exercises to help clear sputum), osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) (a therapeutic application of manually guided forces by a physiotherapist to improve respiratory function and sputum clearance), positive expiratory pressure (use of a device that increases airflow resistance to improve sputum clearance), and high‐frequency chest wall oscillation (chest wall vibration with a specialised device to promote sputum clearance).

Key results

1. Death

Conventional chest physiotherapy, OMT, and high‐frequency chest wall oscillation (versus no physiotherapy or placebo therapy) may have little to no effect on reducing death, but the certainty of evidence is very low.

2. Cure rate

OMT (versus placebo therapy) may improve cure rate as defined by the study authors, but the certainty of evidence is very low. Conventional chest physiotherapy (versus no physiotherapy) and active cycle of breathing techniques may have little to no effect on improving cure rate, but the certainty of evidence is very low.

3. Duration of hospital stay

Positive expiratory pressure (versus no physiotherapy) may reduce the duration of hospital stay by 1.4 days, but the certainty of evidence is very low. OMT, conventional chest physiotherapy, and active cycle of breathing techniques (versus placebo therapy or no physiotherapy) may have little to no effect on duration of hospital stay, but the certainty of evidence is very low.

4. Duration of fever

Positive expiratory pressure (versus no physiotherapy) may reduce the duration of fever by 0.7 days, but the certainty of evidence is very low. Conventional chest physiotherapy (versus no physiotherapy) or OMT (versus placebo therapy) may have little to no effect on duration of fever, but the certainty of evidence is very low.

5. Duration of antibiotic use

OMT (versus placebo therapy) and active cycle of breathing techniques (versus no physiotherapy) may have little to no effect on the duration of antibiotic use, but the certainty of evidence is very low.

6. Duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay

High‐frequency chest wall oscillation (versus no physiotherapy) may reduce the duration of ICU stay by 3.8 days in people with severe pneumonia who received mechanical ventilation (use of a machine to help people breathe), but the certainty of evidence is very low.

7. Duration of mechanical ventilation

High‐frequency chest wall oscillation (versus no physiotherapy) may reduce the duration of mechanism ventilation by three days in people with severe pneumonia who received mechanical ventilation, but the certainty of evidence is very low.

8. Adverse events (unwanted events that cause harm to the patient)

One study reported three serious adverse events (not specified) that caused early withdrawal of participants after OMT. One study reported adverse events as short‐term muscle tenderness after treatment in two participants. Another study reported no adverse events.

Certainty of the evidence

In summary, the certainty of evidence is very low due to research limitations, the small number of participants, and/or imprecision of the results (estimated effects of the treatment were very imprecise). Very low certainty evidence suggests that some physiotherapies may slightly shorten hospital stays, fever duration, antibiotic treatment duration, and ICU stay, as well as mechanical ventilation, but this needs to be further explored.

Summary of findings

Summary of findings 1. Conventional chest physiotherapy plus routine treatment compared to routine treatment alone for pneumonia.

Conventional chest physiotherapy plus routine treatment compared to routine treatment alone for pneumonia
Patient or population: people with pneumonia Settings: hospital Intervention: conventional chest physiotherapy plus routine treatment Comparison: routine treatment alone
Outcomes	*Illustrative comparative risks (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	No. of participants (studies)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Routine treatment alone	Chest physiotherapy plus routine treatment
Mortality Follow‐up: during hospitalisation	17 per 1000	18 per 1000 (3 to 124)	RR 1.03  (0.15 to 7.13)	225 (2 studies)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very low^a,b	Both studies did not report the time point to measure this outcome.
Cure rate Follow‐up: during hospitalisation	930 per 1000	865 per 1000 (521 to 1000)	RR 0.93 (0.56 to 1.55)	225 (2 studies)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very low^a,b	Both studies did not report the time point to measure this outcome.
Duration of hospital stay Follow‐up: during hospitalisation	The mean duration of hospital stay in the control groups was 6.9 days.	The mean duration of hospital stay in the intervention groups was 0.70 higher (1.39 lower to 2.79 higher).	‐	54 (1 study)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very low^c,d
Duration of fever Follow‐up: during hospitalisation	The mean duration of fever in the control groups was 2.5 days.	The mean duration of fever in the intervention groups was 0.40 higher (1.01 lower to 1.81 higher).	‐	54 (1 study)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very low^c,d
Duration of total antibiotic therapy ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment	This outcome was not reported.
Duration of ICU stay ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment	This outcome was not reported.
Duration of mechanical ventilation ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment	This outcome was not reported.
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). CI: confidence interval; ICU: intensive care unit; RR: risk ratio
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate certainty: 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 certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

Open in a new tab

^aDowngraded one level due to high risk of bias (concerns regarding blinding of participants and personnel in one of the two studies) ^bDowngraded two levels because the total number of events was less than 300. ^cDowngraded two levels due to high risk of bias (concerns regarding blinding of participants and personnel in this study). ^dDowngraded one level due to small sample size.

Summary of findings 2. Active cycle of breathing techniques plus routine treatment compared to routine treatment alone for pneumonia.

Active cycle of breathing techniques plus routine treatment compared to routine treatment alone for pneumonia
Patient or population: people with pneumonia Settings: hospital Intervention: active cycle of breathing techniques plus routine treatment Comparison: routine treatment alone
Outcomes	*Illustrative comparative risks (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	No. of participants (studies)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Routine treatment alone	Active cycle of breathing techniques plus routine treatment
Mortality Follow‐up: during hospitalisation	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	32 (1 study)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very low^a,b	No participant died in either group during the study period.
Cure rate Follow‐up: during hospitalisation	700 per 1000	420 per 1000 (203 to 861)	RR 0.60  (0.29 to 1.23)	32 (1 study)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very low^a,b	The study did not clearly did not report the time point to measure this outcome.
Duration of hospital stay Follow‐up: during hospitalisation	The mean duration of hospital stay in the control groups was 5.27 days.	The mean duration of hospital stay in the intervention groups was 1.4 higher (0.69 lower to 3.49 higher).	‐	32 (1 study)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very low^a,b
Duration of fever ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment	This outcome was not reported.
Duration of total antibiotic therapy Follow‐up: during hospitalisation	The mean duration of total antibiotic therapy in the control groups was 15.02 days.	The mean duration of total antibiotic therapy in the intervention groups was 0.15 higher (4.39 lower to 4.69 higher).	‐	32 (1 study)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very low^a,b
Duration of ICU stay ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment	This outcome was not reported.
Duration of mechanical ventilation ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment	This outcome was not reported.
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). CI: confidence interval; ICU: intensive care unit; RR: risk ratio
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate certainty: 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 certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

Open in a new tab

^aDowngraded two levels due to high risk of bias (concerns regarding blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, and incomplete outcome data). ^bDowngraded one level due to small sample size and wide confidence intervals.

Summary of findings 3. Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) plus routine treatment compared to placebo plus routine treatment for pneumonia.

Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) plus routine treatment compared to placebo plus routine treatment for pneumonia
Patient or population: people with pneumonia Settings: hospital Intervention: OMT plus routine treatment Comparison: placebo plus routine treatment
Outcomes	*Illustrative comparative risks (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	No. of participants (studies)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Placebo plus routine treatment	OMT plus routine treatment
Mortality Follow‐up: during hospitalisation	49 per 1000	21 per 1000 (6 to 73)	RR 0.43  (0.12 to 1.50)	327 (3 studies)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very low^a,b	These studies did not report the time point to measure this outcome.
Cure rate Follow‐up: during hospitalisation	375 per 1000	596 per 1000 (379 to 941)	RR 1.59  (1.01 to 2.51)	79 (2 studies)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very low^a,c	These studies did not report the time point to measure this outcome.
Duration of hospital stay Follow‐up: during hospitalisation	The mean duration of hospital stay in the control groups was 9.77 days.	The mean duration of hospital stay in the intervention groups was 1.08 lower (2.39 lower to 0.23 higher).	‐	333 (3 studies)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very low^a,b
Duration of fever Follow‐up: during hospitalisation	The mean duration of fever in the control groups was 1.6 days.	The mean duration of fever in the intervention groups was 0.6 higher (1.60 lower to 2.80 higher).	‐	21 (1 study)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very low^a,c
Duration of total antibiotic therapy Follow‐up: during hospitalisation	The mean duration of total antibiotic therapy in the control groups was 8.37 days.	The mean duration of total antibiotic therapy in the intervention groups was 1.07 lower (2.37 lower to 0.23 higher).	‐	333 (3 studies)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very low^a,b
Duration of ICU stay ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment	This outcome was not reported.
Duration of mechanical ventilation ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment	This outcome was not reported.
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). CI: confidence interval; ICU: intensive care unit; RR: risk ratio
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate certainty: 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 certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

Open in a new tab

^aDowngraded two levels due to very wide confidence intervals and very low event rate. ^bDowngraded two levels due to small sample size and confidence intervals overlapping no effect and substantial benefit. ^cDowngraded two levels due to very small sample size.

Summary of findings 4. Positive expiratory pressure plus routine treatment compared to routine treatment alone for pneumonia.

Positive expiratory pressure plus routine treatment compared to routine treatment alone for pneumonia
Patient or population: people with pneumonia Settings: hospital Intervention: positive expiratory pressure plus routine treatment Comparison: routine treatment alone
Outcomes	*Illustrative comparative risks (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	No. of participants (studies)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Routine treatment alone	Positive expiratory pressure plus routine treatment
Mortality Follow‐up: during hospitalisation	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	98 (1 study)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very low^a,b	No participant died in either group during the study period.
Cure rate ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment	This outcome was not reported.
Duration of hospital stay Follow‐up: during hospitalisation	The mean duration of hospital stay in the control groups was 5.3 days.	The mean duration of hospital stay in the intervention groups was 1.40 lower (2.77 to 0.03 lower).	‐	98 (1 study)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very low^a,c
Duration of fever Follow‐up: during hospitalisation	The mean duration of fever in the control groups was 2.3 days.	The mean duration of fever in the intervention groups was 0.7 lower (1.36 to 0.04 lower).	‐	98 (1 study)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very low^a,c
Duration of total antibiotic therapy ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment	This outcome was not reported.
Duration of ICU stay ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment	This outcome was not reported.
Duration of mechanical ventilation ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment	This outcome was not reported.
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). CI: confidence interval; ICU: intensive care unit; RR: risk ratio
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate certainty: 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 certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

Open in a new tab

^aDowngraded two levels due to high risk of bias (concerns regarding blinding of participants and personnel and blinding of outcome assessment). ^bDowngraded one level because total number of events was less than 300. ^cDowngraded one level due to small sample size.

Summary of findings 5. High‐frequency chest wall oscillation plus fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage compared to fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage alone for severe pneumonia and receiving mechanical ventilation.

High‐frequency chest wall oscillation plus fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage compared to fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage alone for severe pneumonia and receiving mechanical ventilation
Patient or population: people with severe pneumonia and receiving mechanical ventilation Settings: intensive care unit Intervention: high‐frequency chest wall oscillation plus fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage Comparison: fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage alone
Outcomes	*Illustrative comparative risks (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	No. of participants (studies)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Fiberbronchoscope alveolar lavage alone	High‐frequency chest wall oscillation plus fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage
Mortality Follow‐up: during hospitalisation	28 per 1000	21 per 1000 (5 to 92)	RR 0.75  (0.17 to 3.29)	286 (1 study)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very low^a,b	This study did not report the time point to measure this outcome.
Cure rate ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment	This outcome was not reported.
Duration of hospital stay ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment	This outcome was not reported.
Duration of fever ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment	This outcome was not reported.
Duration of total antibiotic therapy ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment	This outcome was not reported.
Duration of ICU stay Follow‐up: during hospitalisation	The mean duration of ICU stay in the control groups was 12.4 days.	The mean duration of ICU stay in the intervention groups was 3.8 lower (5 to 2.6 lower).	‐	286 (1 study)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very low^a,c
Duration of mechanical ventilation Follow‐up: during hospitalisation	The mean duration of mechanical ventilation in the control groups was 9.4 days.	The mean duration of mechanical ventilation in the intervention groups was 3 lower (3.68 to 2.32 lower).	‐	286 (1 study)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very low^a,c
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). CI: confidence interval; ICU: intensive care unit; RR: risk ratio
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate certainty: 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 certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

Open in a new tab

^aDowngraded two levels due to high risk of bias (concerns regarding allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, and blinding of outcome assessment). ^bDowngraded two levels due to very few events and very wide confidence intervals encompassing both substantial benefit and substantial harm. ^cDowngrade one level due to small sample size.

Background

This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review first published in 2010 (Yang 2010), and first updated in 2013 (Yang 2013).

Description of the condition

The leading cause of death from infectious diseases (Ferreira‐Coimbra 2020), pneumonia is most commonly caused by bacteria, but occasionally is caused by viruses, fungi, parasites, and other infectious agents. Pneumonia is typically classified as community‐acquired pneumonia (CAP), hospital‐acquired pneumonia (HAP, also known as nosocomial pneumonia), and ventilator‐associated pneumonia (VAP, the most serious form of nosocomial pneumonia, infecting patients who are mechanically ventilated for other reasons) (Kalil 2016). Pneumonia is highly prevalent in adults worldwide and is one of the most commonly encountered conditions in clinical practice (Musher 2014). For example, the incidence of CAP in adults ranges from 5 to 11 per 1000 per year in European and North American countries (Lim 2009). The incidence of CAP increases with aging (Cao 2018). For example, Japanese researchers revealed that in the 15 to 64, 65 to 74, and ≥ 75‐year‐old populations, the incidence of CAP was 3.4/1000, 10.7/1000, and 42.9/1000 person‐years, respectively (Kalil 2016). In adults, pneumonia mortality also increases with advanced age (Zhang 2018). For example, according to a Japanese study, hospitalised CAP patients had a mortality rate of 1.4% in the 15 to 44 age group, 3.3% in the 45 to 64 age group, 6.9% in the 65 to 74 age group, and 9.3% in the 75 and older age group (Takayanagi 2006). In a large cohort of Chinese adults with CAP, 4.2% of patients died in 30 days, 6.3% were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU), and 2.7% required invasive mechanical ventilation (Chen 2018). Pneumonia also induces a heavy disease burden (Prina 2015). According to a recent study (Tong 2018), in the United States, pneumonia costs were between USD 910 and USD 2621.9 for children, USD 2170.7 and USD 3478.1 for adults, and USD 4025.8 and USD 4923.0 for elderly adults.

Description of the intervention

Antibiotics are the cornerstone of pneumonia treatment (Metlay 2019), whilst other therapies are mostly supportive. These adjunctive therapies include supplementary oxygen, intravenous hydration, and chest physiotherapy (George 1995). Chest physiotherapy is an airway clearance technique that combines manual percussion of the chest wall by a caregiver, strategic positioning of the patient for mucous drainage, and teaching cough and breathing techniques.

Conventional chest physiotherapy includes postural drainage, percussion, chest shaking, huffing, and coughing. Recently, several new physiotherapy techniques have been developed, including the active cycle of breathing techniques (Lewis 2012), positive expiratory pressure (McIlwaine 2015), osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) (Jonas 2018), and high‐frequency chest wall oscillation (Nicolini 2013). Active cycle of breathing techniques includes active breathing control, thoracic expansion exercises and forced expiration technique, and sometimes postural drainage and chest clapping (Lewis 2012). Positive expiratory pressure uses a device to provide a positive expiratory pressure of 10 to 25 cmH₂0 during expiration. It may stabilise airways by keeping them open during expiration, which may facilitate airway clearance (McIlwaine 2015). OMT includes bilateral paraspinal inhibition, bilateral rib raising, diaphragmatic myofascial release, and soft myofascial release to the anterior thoracic inlet. It may improve chest wall mobility and enhance exercise tolerance (Jonas 2018). High‐frequency chest wall oscillation generally uses an inflatable jacket connected to an air pulse generator to compress the chest wall. By delivering an intermittent flow of air into the jacket, the chest wall can be compressed and released at various frequencies (Nicolini 2013). High‐frequency chest wall oscillation has been shown to facilitate mucus clearance centrally and peripherally (Nicolini 2013).

How the intervention might work

Chest physiotherapy assists in treating some of the symptoms of respiratory disorders, such as airflow obstruction, alterations in ventilatory pump functions, and impaired exercise performance. The aim is to improve the patient's respiratory status and expedite recovery by enhancing airway clearance in lung diseases associated with hypersecretion and reduced airway resistance. Increased airway clearance reduces airway resistance, enhances gas exchange, and reduces breathing effort (Chaves 2019; Wallis 1999).

Why it is important to do this review

Chest physiotherapies for cystic fibrosis and acute bronchiolitis have been reviewed (Roqué 2016; Warnock 2015). The Cochrane Review regarding chest physiotherapy for pneumonia in children has also been recently updated (Chaves 2019). However, the clinical effectiveness of chest physiotherapy for pneumonia in adults is controversial. Some clinical studies have reported that chest physiotherapy does not hasten the resolution of pneumonia (Graham 1978), or was not useful (Britton 1983; Britton 1985). Two studies suggested that larger or multicentre trials are needed to confirm the findings (Ntoumenopoulos 2002; Tydeman 1989). Other studies have concluded that chest physiotherapy has beneficial effects in patients with pulmonary infection (Marques 2020). On the other hand, chest physiotherapy may be ineffective and even harmful. It may cause an increase in oxygen consumption (Horiuchi 1997; Weissman 1991; Weissman 1993), bronchospasm (Campbell 1975), induce hypertension, increase oxygen demand (Horiuchi 1997; Weissman 1993), cause hypoxaemia (Connors 1980; Poelaert 1991), and even lead to rib fractures (Chalumeau 2002). It was therefore necessary to systematically summarise the evidence regarding chest physiotherapy for treating adult patients with pneumonia. The last version of this review was published in 2013 (Yang 2013), and did not support the routine application of chest physiotherapy for pneumonia in adults. Since more than eight years have passed and new relevant evidence may have become available, we updated the review to summarise all randomised controlled trials which examine the effectiveness and safety of chest physiotherapy for pneumonia in adults.

Objectives

To assess the effectiveness and safety of chest physiotherapy for pneumonia in adults.

Methods

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Types of studies

We considered all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cross‐over RCTs and cluster‐RCTs, and quasi‐RCTs assessing the efficacy of chest physiotherapy for adult participants with any type of pneumonia. We included trials that also included other basic respiratory diseases, once pneumonia was diagnosed; we analysed such trials separately. We excluded trials in which physiotherapy was administered for the prevention of pneumonia, as pneumonia can occur in many conditions, such as trauma, cerebral vessels disease, and postoperative conditions. We included both published and unpublished trials.

Types of participants

Adult participants (older than 18 years of age) of either gender, with any type of pneumonia. Pneumonia was defined by the original trial author. We included intubated or non‐intubated participants. We excluded trials if the participants had respiratory comorbidities, such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or atelectasis. Some trials involved participants who suffered from different diseases (e.g. some had COPD, whereas others had pneumonia). In such a case, if the subgroup analysis data of participants with pneumonia could be extracted, we would include the trial. Otherwise, the trial was excluded.

Types of interventions

Chest physiotherapy of any type was compared with no chest physiotherapy. We included trials using traditional chest physiotherapy, as well as trials using mechanical devices which have the same effect as traditional chest physiotherapy. We considered the following methods: postural drainage, chest percussion, vibration, thoracic oscillation, chest shaking, huffing, directed coughing, thoracic expansion, forced exhalation or expiration techniques, and manual hyperinflation.

Types of outcome measures

We included the following outcomes.

Primary outcomes

Mortality.
Cure rate (the definitions of 'cure' and the 'time to cure' were determined by the original trial authors).

Secondary outcomes

Duration of hospital stay (days).
Healing time (days) (subjective or objective assessment of time to complete recovery).
Duration of fever (days) (fever defined as more than 37.5 °C).
Rate of improvement of chest X‐ray (chest X‐ray improvement was defined as any improvement on chest X‐ray after treatment compared with before treatment. The assessment could be made by radiologists or clinicians).
Duration of antibiotic therapy (days).
Duration of sputum production (days).
Duration of mechanical ventilation (days).
Duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (days).
Time to clinical stability (days).
Rate of in‐hospital respiratory failure.
Rate of 60‐day hospital readmission.
Duration of leukocytosis (days).
Change in leukocyte count.
Mean leukocyte count.
Inpatient sputum weight (g).

Adverse events

We defined serious adverse events according to the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) Guidelines as any event that: leads to death, is life‐threatening, requires inpatient hospitalisation or prolongation of existing hospitalisation, results in persistent or significant disability, and any important medical event which may harm the patient or requires intervention to prevent it (ICH 1997). We considered all other adverse events as non‐serious.

Search methods for identification of studies

Electronic searches

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 4, 2022) via OvidSP (November 2012 to 25 May 2022), MEDLINE via OvidSP (November 2012 to 25 May 2022), Embase via embase.com (November 2012 to 25 May 2022), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) (November 2012 to 25 May 2022), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) via EBSCO (2012 to 25 May 2022), and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (2012 to 25 May 2022). Please see Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 for details of the previous searches.

We used the strategy in Appendix 3 to search MEDLINE and CENTRAL. We combined the MEDLINE search with the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy for identifying randomised trials in MEDLINE: sensitivity‐ and precision‐maximising version (2008 revision), Ovid format (Lefebvre 2021). We adapted these search terms to search Embase (see Appendix 4), PEDro (see Appendix 5), and CINAHL (see Appendix 6).

Searching other resources

We handsearched the references of all included trials for any additional relevant studies. We did not impose any language or publication restrictions.

Data collection and analysis

Selection of studies

Two review authors (HBF, JL) independently searched the databases. Two review authors (XMC, JJJ) independently assessed the titles and abstracts of records identified by the search to determine potential relevance. Two review authors (RJW, JL) independently assessed the full texts of the publications deemed potentially relevant, excluding any trials that failed to meet the inclusion criteria. Any differences between review authors were resolved by the arbitrator (MY).

Data extraction and management

Two review authors (XMC, JJJ) independently extracted data using a standardised form. A third review author (MY) checked the extracted data. Extracted data included, where available:

description of participants (including age, gender, type of pneumonia);
severity of pneumonia;
basic conditions and setting;
description of intervention (details of chest physiotherapy, including type, frequency, intensity, and time);
description of control therapy;
methodological details (including design and recruitment);
method of randomisation;
sample size;
trial inclusion and exclusion criteria;
withdrawals;
description of outcomes (including mortality, duration of hospital stay, adverse events, cure, healing time, rate of clearing of X‐ray film, and duration of fever); and
source of funding.

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

In this update, two review authors (XMC, JL) independently assessed the risk of bias for all included studies based on Cochrane’s risk of bias tool (RoB 1) in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2021). The arbitrator (MY) resolved any differences. We assessed the following domains.

Random sequence generation (selection bias)
Allocation concealment (selective bias)
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)
Other bias

We assessed each domain as one of three levels: low, high, or unclear risk of bias, and provided support for each judgement in the risk of bias table. We judged the overall risk of bias of each included trial as: low risk of bias (all domains were at low risk of bias); unclear risk of bias (at least one domain was at unclear risk of bias and no domain was at high risk of bias); or high risk of bias (at least one domain was at high risk of bias) (Higgins 2021).

Measures of treatment effect

We expressed dichotomous data, such as cure rate or mortality, as risk ratios (RR). We expressed continuous data, such as duration of fever, as mean differences (MD). We reported all outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Unit of analysis issues

The unit of analysis was the individual, as all included trials were simple parallel‐group trials in which participants were randomly allocated to several groups, and a single result for each outcome from each individual was collected and analysed. None of the included trials used complicated designs such as cross‐over or cluster randomisation.

Dealing with missing data

We attempted to contact trial authors by email to search for additional papers, and to confirm data extraction and obtain missing data where necessary, but obtained no further information. Only available data were analysed (i.e. ignoring missing data). We did not apply any statistical method to impute missing data.

Assessment of heterogeneity

We assessed heterogeneity in trial results by inspecting the forest plots to detect non‐overlapping CIs, applying the Chi² test with a P value of 0.10 indicating statistical significance, and implementing the I² statistic (considering a value of 50% as indicative of moderate heterogeneity). In the case of heterogeneity between studies, we attempted to explore possible sources due to various factors, such as type of pneumonia and type of physiotherapy.

Assessment of reporting biases

The small number of included studies precluded a funnel plot analysis to identify reporting biases.

Data synthesis

We used Review Manager 5 to combine some outcomes (Review Manager 2020). We used a fixed‐effect model for single‐study analyses, and a random‐effects model for multiple‐study meta‐analyses. When determining the precision of the CIs around the overall effect size, the random‐effects model takes into account both within‐study sampling error and between‐study variation, whereas the fixed‐effect model only considers within‐study variation.

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

Due to significant clinical heterogeneity, we reported different comparison results according to different types of chest physiotherapy. We performed subgroup analyses according to clinical settings (inpatient or outpatient) and different time durations (e.g. mean leukocyte count on Day 3 from admission, or on Day 5 from admission), if necessary.

Sensitivity analysis

The limited amount of data available for each outcome precluded sensitivity analyses.

Summary of findings and assessment of the certainty of the evidence

We included five summary of findings tables in this 2022 update using the following outcomes: mortality, cure rate, duration of hospital stay, duration of fever, duration of total antibiotic therapy, duration of ICU stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation (Table 1; Table 2; Table 3; Table 4; Table 5). We used the GRADE system to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. Based on the GRADE Working Group guidelines, we assessed the certainty of evidence for the selected outcomes (Guyatt 2008). We used GRADEpro GDT software to develop the summary of findings tables (GRADEpro GDT).

Results

Description of studies

See Characteristics of included studies and Characteristics of excluded studies.

Results of the search

In this update, we identified a total of 8634 records from the electronic databases after removal of duplicates. After screening the titles and abstracts, we identified 12 publications of 11 studies for full‐text evaluation (Ahmed 2021; Cao 2020; Jose 2016; Lopez‐Lopez 2019; Martín‐Salvador 2016; NCT05007457; Noll 2010; Shi 2017; Valenza 2016; Wang 2020; Xu 2021). Of these, three publications of two trials, Noll 2010 and Shi 2017, met our inclusion criteria (see Characteristics of included studies), and one publication, NCT05007457, was an ongoing study (see Characteristics of ongoing studies). In addition, six publications identified in the 2012 version were assessed as awaiting classification because five of them were published in Russian (Kuznetsov 1976; Kuznetsov 1980a; Kuznetsov 1980b; Sedov 1975; Vorob'ev 1984), and one was published in 1947 (Facto 1947). In this 2022 update, we acquired and screened the full‐text copies of these trials. All six publications were excluded (see Characteristics of excluded studies).

In the 2012 update (Yang 2013), a total of 835 records were identified from the electronic databases after removal of duplicates. After title and abstract screening, two publications were considered to be potentially eligible (Dangour 2011; Noll 2008). However, both publications were finally excluded. Noll 2008 was grouped into Noll 2010 as a supplementary reference in the current update.

In the 2009 search (Yang 2010), 1329 articles were identified by electronic database searching. After title and abstract screening, 68 trials were selected as potentially relevant. Six of these trials met our inclusion criteria (see Characteristics of included studies) (Bjorkqvist 1997; Britton 1985; Graham 1978; Noll 1999; Noll 2000; Tydeman 1989).

A study flow diagram is shown in Figure 1.

Included studies

We included a total of eight RCTs in the review (Bjorkqvist 1997; Britton 1985; Graham 1978; Noll 1999; Noll 2000; Noll 2010; Shi 2017; Tydeman 1989), of which four were conducted in the United States (Graham 1978; Noll 1999; Noll 2000; Noll 2010), two in Sweden (Bjorkqvist 1997; Britton 1985), one in China (Shi 2017), and one in the United Kingdom (Tydeman 1989). All of them were randomised, parallel‐group controlled trials. None of the trials was supported by pharmaceutical company funding. All included trials were conducted in inpatient settings.

Participants

The eight trials included a total of 974 participants (462 males, 512 females), with 484 participants in the treatment group and 490 participants in the control group. The included trials involved participants with acute pneumonia. Two trials included community‐acquired pneumonia (CAP) only (Bjorkqvist 1997; Tydeman 1989); three trials included CAP, nosocomial pneumonia, and nursing home‐acquired pneumonia (Noll 1999; Noll 2000; Noll 2010); and one trial included severe pneumonia patients receiving mechanical ventilation (Shi 2017). The remaining two trials did not describe the type of pneumonia (Britton 1985; Graham 1978). The severity of pneumonia was mild to moderate in two trials (Graham 1978; Tydeman 1989), severe in one trial (Shi 2017), mild to severe in one trial (Noll 2010), and not stated in the other four trials (Bjorkqvist 1997; Britton 1985; Noll 1999; Noll 2000). The baseline characteristics of the experiment and control groups of each included trial were comparable. Three included studies had missing data (13%, 4.7%, and 11% of the study populations, respectively) (Bjorkqvist 1997; Noll 2010; Tydeman 1989).

Interventions

Three trials compared chest physiotherapy and routine treatment to placebo and routine treatment (Noll 1999; Noll 2000; Noll 2010). In the other five trials (Bjorkqvist 1997; Britton 1985; Graham 1978; Shi 2017; Tydeman 1989), chest physiotherapy and routine treatment were compared with routine treatment alone. The types of chest physiotherapies used in the included trials differed, and included conventional chest physiotherapy, OMT, active cycle of breathing techniques, positive expiratory pressure, and high‐frequency chest wall oscillation. Both treatment and control groups were given routine treatments such as antibiotics, oxygen therapy, and other drug therapies, if necessary.

Outcome measures

The primary outcomes were mortality and cure rate. Mortality could be calculated from data from all included trials. However, the cure rate was calculated from five included trials (Britton 1985; Graham 1978; Noll 1999; Noll 2000; Tydeman 1989).

The following secondary outcomes were reported in some of the included trials.

Duration of hospital stay (Bjorkqvist 1997; Britton 1985; Graham 1978; Noll 1999; Noll 2000; Noll 2010; Shi 2017; Tydeman 1989).
Healing time (Britton 1985).
Duration of fever (Bjorkqvist 1997; Britton 1985; Graham 1978; Noll 1999).
Rate of improvement of chest X‐ray (Graham 1978; Noll 1999; Noll 2000; Tydeman 1989).
Duration of antibiotic therapy (Noll 1999; Noll 2000; Noll 2010; Tydeman 1989).
Duration of sputum production (Tydeman 1989).
Duration of mechanical ventilation (Shi 2017).
Duration of ICU stay (Shi 2017).
Time to clinical stability (Noll 2010).
Rate of in‐hospital respiratory failure (Noll 2010).
Rate of 60‐day hospital readmission (Noll 2010).
Duration of leukocytosis (Noll 1999).
Change in leukocyte count (Noll 2000).
Mean leukocyte count (Noll 2000).
Inpatient sputum weight (Tydeman 1989).

Additionally, several included trials reported adverse effects. Two trials reported adverse effects (Noll 2000; Noll 2010), another trial reported that there were no side effects during the study period (Bjorkqvist 1997), and the remaining trials did not address this outcome.

Excluded studies

For reasons for exclusion of the excluded studies, see Characteristics of excluded studies.

Risk of bias in included studies

Details on risk of bias of each trial are provided in Characteristics of included studies. We assessed four included trials as having high risk of bias due to at least one type of bias (Figure 2; Figure 3) (Bjorkqvist 1997; Britton 1985; Shi 2017; Tydeman 1989).

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Allocation

All eight trials explicitly stated that randomisation was used in their studies. However, only two trials mentioned the method of randomisation (Noll 2010; Shi 2017). Only four trials clearly described the method of allocation concealment (Bjorkqvist 1997; Britton 1985; Graham 1978; Noll 2010).

Blinding

Participants and personnel were blinded in three trials (Noll 1999; Noll 2000; Noll 2010), but were not blinded in four other trials (Bjorkqvist 1997; Britton 1985; Shi 2017; Tydeman 1989). Outcome assessors were blinded in four trials (Britton 1985; Noll 1999; Noll 2000; Noll 2010), but were not blinded in three other trials (Bjorkqvist 1997; Shi 2017; Tydeman 1989).

In one study it was unclear whether blinding was used or not (Graham 1978).

Incomplete outcome data

In four trials information was insufficient to permit a judgement on attrition bias (Bjorkqvist 1997; Britton 1985; Graham 1978; Noll 2010). Three trials were at low risk of attrition bias (Noll 1999; Noll 2000; Shi 2017), and the remaining trial was at high risk of attrition bias (Tydeman 1989).

Selective reporting

One trial was at low risk of reporting bias (Noll 2010). Information was insufficient to determine reporting bias in the other trials.

Other potential sources of bias

Information was insufficient to determine other potential sources of bias in all included trials.

Effects of interventions

See: Table 1; Table 2; Table 3; Table 4; Table 5

Given the obvious clinical heterogeneity between different chest physiotherapies, we presented the results as comparisons between:

conventional chest physiotherapy plus routine treatment versus routine treatment alone;
active cycle of breathing techniques plus routine treatment versus routine treatment alone;
OMT plus routine treatment versus placebo plus routine treatment;
positive expiratory pressure plus routine treatment versus routine treatment alone; and
high‐frequency chest wall oscillation plus fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage versus fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage alone.

In the three trials evaluating OMT plus routine treatment (Noll 1999; Noll 2000; Noll 2010), the comparator was standardised light touch treatment as a placebo in addition to the routine treatment. In the remaining trials, participants in the control group received routine treatment alone.

1. Conventional chest physiotherapy plus routine treatment versus routine treatment alone

Two trials including a total of 225 participants (110 in treatment group and 115 in control group) evaluated the effect of conventional chest physiotherapy (Britton 1985; Graham 1978).

1.1 Primary outcomes

1.1.1 Mortality

Meta‐analysis of Britton 1985 and Graham 1978 using a random‐effects model indicated that there may be little or no difference between the use of conventional chest physiotherapy plus routine treatment and routine treatment alone in mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 7.13; 2 trials, 225 participants; I² = 0%; very low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 1.1).

1.1 — Comparison 1: Conventional chest physiotherapy plus routine treatment versus routine treatment alone, Outcome 1: Mortality

1.1.2. Cure rate

In one trial (Britton 1985), all participants were cured in both treatment and control group, whilst the other trial reported that cure rates in the treatment group and control group were 59.26% and 70.37%, respectively (Graham 1978). However, pooled data with a random‐effects model indicated that there may be little or no difference between conventional chest physiotherapy plus routine treatment and routine treatment alone in cure rate (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.55; 2 trials, 225 participants; I² = 85%; very low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 1.2).

1.2 — Comparison 1: Conventional chest physiotherapy plus routine treatment versus routine treatment alone, Outcome 2: Cure rate

1.2 Secondary outcomes

1.2.1 Duration of hospital stay

We were unable to perform meta‐analysis, as one of the included trials did not report the standard deviation (SD) of the duration of hospital stay (Britton 1985). Britton 1985 found little or no difference between treatment and control groups (P value was unavailable; 1 trial, 171 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). Graham 1978 reached a similar result (mean difference (MD) 0.7 days, 95% CI −1.39 to 2.79; 1 trial, 54 participants; very low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 1.3).

1.3 — Comparison 1: Conventional chest physiotherapy plus routine treatment versus routine treatment alone, Outcome 3: Duration of hospital stay

1.2.2 Healing time

Britton 1985 reported healing time as a secondary outcome. The mean healing time was 30.6 days in the treatment group and 31.3 days in the control group. The study reported little or no difference between groups (P value was unavailable; 1 trial, 171 participants; very low‐certainty evidence).

1.2.3 Duration of fever

Britton 1985 did not report the SD of the duration of fever, therefore we could not perform a meta‐analysis. Britton 1985 reported mean duration of fever in the treatment group and control group as 6.8 and 4.9 days, respectively (P < 0.01). The other trial reported mean duration of fever in the treatment group and control group as 2.9 and 2.5 days, respectively (MD 0.4 days, 95% CI −1.01 to 1.81; 1 trial, 54 participants; very low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 1.4) (Graham 1978).

1.4 — Comparison 1: Conventional chest physiotherapy plus routine treatment versus routine treatment alone, Outcome 4: Duration of fever

1.2.4 Rate of improvement of chest X‐ray

Only Graham 1978 reported this outcome, which indicated that conventional chest physiotherapy may have little or no benefit on improvement of chest X‐ray (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.22; 1 trial, 54 participants; very low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 1.5).

1.5 — Comparison 1: Conventional chest physiotherapy plus routine treatment versus routine treatment alone, Outcome 5: Rate of improvement of chest X‐ray

1.2.5 Duration of antibiotic therapy

Not reported.

1.2.6 Duration of sputum production

Not reported.

1.2.7 Duration of mechanical ventilation

Not reported.

1.2.8 Duration of ICU stay

Not reported.

1.2.9 Time to clinical stability

Not reported.

1.2.10 Rate of in‐hospital respiratory failure

Not reported.

1.2.11 Rate of 60‐day hospital readmission

Not reported.

1.2.12 Duration of leukocytosis

Not reported.

1.2.13 Change in leukocyte count

Not reported.

1.2.14 Mean leukocyte count

Not reported.

1.2.15 Inpatient sputum weight

Not reported.

Adverse effects

Not reported.

2. Active cycle of breathing techniques plus routine treatment versus routine treatment alone

Only one trial including 32 participants (12 in treatment group and 20 in control group) evaluated active cycle of breathing techniques (Tydeman 1989).

2.1 Primary outcomes

2.1.1 Mortality

No participants died during the study period.

2.1.2 Cure rate

There may be little or no difference between active cycle of breathing techniques plus routine treatment and routine treatment alone in cure rate (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.23; 1 trial, 32 participants; very low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 2.1).

2.1 — Comparison 2: Active cycle of breathing techniques plus routine treatment versus routine treatment alone, Outcome 1: Cure rate

2.2 Secondary outcomes

2.2.1 Duration of hospital stay

Duration of hospital stay (mean ± SD) was 6.67 ± 3.26 days in the treatment group and 5.27 ± 2.26 days in the control group. However, there may be little or no difference between groups (MD 1.40 days, 95% CI −0.69 to 3.49; 1 trial, 32 participants; very low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 2.2).

2.2 — Comparison 2: Active cycle of breathing techniques plus routine treatment versus routine treatment alone, Outcome 2: Duration of hospital stay

2.2.2 Healing time

Not reported.

2.2.3 Duration of fever

Not reported.

2.2.4 Rate of improvement of chest X‐ray

Active cycle of breathing techniques may provide no benefit in rate of improvement of chest X‐ray (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.23; 1 trial, 32 participants; very low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 2.3).

2.3 — Comparison 2: Active cycle of breathing techniques plus routine treatment versus routine treatment alone, Outcome 3: Rate of improvement of chest X‐ray

2.2.5 Duration of antibiotic therapy

Duration of antibiotic therapy (mean ± SD) was 15.17 ± 6.70 days in the treatment group and 15.02 ± 5.53 days in the control group. There may be little or no difference between groups (MD 0.2 days, 95% CI −4.39 to 4.69; 1 trial, 32 participants; very low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 2.4).

2.4 — Comparison 2: Active cycle of breathing techniques plus routine treatment versus routine treatment alone, Outcome 4: Duration of antibiotic therapy

2.2.6 Duration of sputum production

There may be little or no differences in both inpatient and outpatient populations in duration of sputum production (MD 0.83 days, 95% CI −1.57 to 3.23; MD −1.20 days, 95% CI −3.28 to 0.88, respectively; 1 trial, 32 participants; very low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 2.5).

2.5 — Comparison 2: Active cycle of breathing techniques plus routine treatment versus routine treatment alone, Outcome 5: Duration of sputum production

2.2.7 Duration of mechanical ventilation

Not reported.

2.2.8 Duration of ICU stay

Not reported.

2.2.9 Time to clinical stability

Not reported.

2.2.10 Rate of in‐hospital respiratory failure

Not reported.

2.2.11 Rate of 60‐day hospital readmission

Not reported.

2.2.12 Duration of leukocytosis

Not reported.

2.2.13 Change in leukocyte count

Not reported.

2.2.14 Mean leukocyte count

Not reported.

2.2.15 Inpatient sputum weight

There may be little or no difference between active cycle of breathing techniques plus routine treatment and routine treatment alone in inpatient sputum weight (MD 4.9 g, 95% CI −1.82 to 11.62; 1 trial, 32 participants; very low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 2.6).

2.6 — Comparison 2: Active cycle of breathing techniques plus routine treatment versus routine treatment alone, Outcome 6: Inpatient sputum weight

Adverse effects

Not reported.

3. OMT plus routine treatment versus placebo plus routine treatment

The first publication of this review included two RCTs focusing on this technique (Noll 1999; Noll 2000). In this update, we included an additional RCT in which participants were randomly allocated to three groups (Noll 2010): the treatment group, the placebo treatment group, and the control group. To achieve comparable groups from the previous trials (Noll 1999; Noll 2000), we included only the results of the treatment group and the placebo group. We thus included three RCTs involving a total of 349 participants (174 in treatment group and 175 in control group) (Noll 1999; Noll 2000; Noll 2010).

3.1 Primary outcomes

3.1.1 Mortality

Three RCTs reported this outcome (Noll 1999; Noll 2000; Noll 2010). Pooled data with a random‐effects model indicated that there may be little to no difference between OMT plus routine treatment and placebo plus routine treatment in mortality (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.50; 3 trials, 327 participants; I² = 0%; very low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 3.1).

3.1 — Comparison 3: OMT plus routine treatment versus placebo plus routine treatment, Outcome 1: Mortality

3.1.2 Cure rate

Two RCTs evaluated this outcome (Noll 1999; Noll 2000). Pooled data with a random‐effects model showed that OMT plus routine treatment may increase cure rate compared to placebo plus routine treatment (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.51; 2 trials, 79 participants; I² = 0%; very low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 3.2).

3.2 — Comparison 3: OMT plus routine treatment versus placebo plus routine treatment, Outcome 2: Cure rate

3.2 Secondary outcomes

3.2.1 Duration of hospital stay

3.3 — Comparison 3: OMT plus routine treatment versus placebo plus routine treatment, Outcome 3: Duration of hospital stay

3.2.2 Healing time

Not reported.

3.2.3 Duration of fever

Only one RCT with 21 participants assessed this outcome (Noll 1999), finding that OMT plus routine treatment may have little to no effect on duration of fever in comparison with placebo plus routine treatment (MD 0.6 days, 95% CI −1.60 to 2.80; 1 trial, 21 participants; very low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 3.4).

3.4 — Comparison 3: OMT plus routine treatment versus placebo plus routine treatment, Outcome 4: Duration of fever

3.2.4 Rate of improvement of chest X‐ray

Two RCTs reported this outcome (Noll 1999; Noll 2000). Pooled data with a random‐effects model showed that OMT plus routine treatment may provide little to no benefit on improvement of chest X‐ray in comparison with placebo plus routine treatment (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.74; 2 trials, 75 participants; I² = 0%; very low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 3.5).

3.5 — Comparison 3: OMT plus routine treatment versus placebo plus routine treatment, Outcome 5: Rate of improvement of chest X‐ray

3.2.5 Duration of antibiotic therapy

Three RCTs reported this outcome (Noll 1999; Noll 2000; Noll 2010). Pooled data with a random‐effects model showed that OMT plus routine treatment may have little to no effect on mean duration of total (intravenous + oral) antibiotic therapy in comparison with placebo plus routine treatment (MD −1.07 days, 95% CI −2.37 to 0.23; 3 trials, 333 participants; I² = 61%; very low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 3.6). Pooled data with a random‐effects model showed that OMT plus routine treatment may have little to no effect on mean duration of intravenous antibiotic therapy in comparison with placebo plus routine treatment (MD −1.28 days, 95% CI −2.97 to 0.41; 3 trials, 333 participants; I² = 74%; very low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 3.7). Additionally, based on Noll 1999 and Noll 2000, pooled data with a random‐effects model showed that OMT plus routine treatment may have little to no effect on mean duration of oral antibiotic therapy in comparison with placebo plus routine treatment (MD 0.97 days, 95% CI −1.25 to 3.20; 2 trials, 79 participants; I² = 78%; very low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 3.8).

3.6 — Comparison 3: OMT plus routine treatment versus placebo plus routine treatment, Outcome 6: Duration of total antibiotic therapy

3.7 — Comparison 3: OMT plus routine treatment versus placebo plus routine treatment, Outcome 7: Duration of intervenous antibiotic therapy

3.8 — Comparison 3: OMT plus routine treatment versus placebo plus routine treatment, Outcome 8: Duration of oral antibiotic therapy

3.2.6 Duration of sputum production

Not reported.

3.2.7 Duration of mechanical ventilation

Not reported.

3.2.8 Duration of ICU stay

Not reported.

3.2.9 Time to clinical stability

Noll 2010 reported time to clinical stability, which was defined as "the hospital calendar day when all seven clinical parameters first met criteria for stability (i.e., lowest systolic blood pressure ≥ 90 mmHg, highest heart rate ≤ 100 beats/min, highest respiratory rate ≤ 24 breaths/min, highest temperature ≤ 38°C, lowest oxygen saturation ≥ 90%, ability to eat food by mouth or by a feeding tube, and mental status back to pre‐pneumonia baseline)". There may be little to no difference between OMT plus routine treatment and placebo plus routine treatment in time to clinical stability (MD 0 days, 95% CI −0.38 to 0.38; 1 trial, 239 participants; very low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 3.9).

3.9 — Comparison 3: OMT plus routine treatment versus placebo plus routine treatment, Outcome 9: Time to clinical stability

3.2.10 Rate of in‐hospital respiratory failure

Noll 2010 reported this outcome. Compared with placebo plus routine treatment, OMT plus routine treatment may have little to no effect on rate of in‐hospital respiratory failure (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.26 to 3.91; 1 trial, 248 participants; very low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 3.10).

3.10 — Comparison 3: OMT plus routine treatment versus placebo plus routine treatment, Outcome 10: Rate of in‐hospital respiratory failure

3.2.11 Rate of 60‐day hospital readmission

Noll 2010 reported this outcome. Compared with placebo plus routine treatment, OMT plus routine treatment may have little to no effect on rate of 60‐day hospital readmission (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.49; 1 trial, 189 participants; very low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 3.11).

3.11 — Comparison 3: OMT plus routine treatment versus placebo plus routine treatment, Outcome 11: Rate of 60‐day hospital readmission

3.2.12 Duration of leukocytosis

Only one RCT assessed this outcome (Noll 1999), finding that OMT plus routine treatment may have little to no effect on mean duration of leukocytosis in comparison with placebo plus routine treatment (MD −0.90 day, 95% CI −7.02 to 5.22; 1 trial, 21 participants; very low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 3.12).

3.12 — Comparison 3: OMT plus routine treatment versus placebo plus routine treatment, Outcome 12: Duration of leukocytosis

3.2.13 Change in leukocyte count

One RCT assessed change in leukocytosis count (Noll 2000). Between Days 1 and 3 from admission, OMT may improve leukocyte count changes (MD 3599.8, 95% CI 1121.22 to 6078.38; 1 trial, 58 participants; very low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 3.13). However, by Day 5, OMT may have little to no effect on leukocyte count changes (MD 2271.5, 95% CI −1287.07 to 5830.07; 1 trial, 58 participants; very low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 3.13).

3.13 — Comparison 3: OMT plus routine treatment versus placebo plus routine treatment, Outcome 13: Change in leukocyte count

3.2.14 Mean leukocyte count

One RCT also assessed mean leukocyte count on Days 3 and 5 after admission (Noll 2000), finding that there may be little to no difference between groups in mean white blood cell count on Days 3 and 5 (Day 3: MD 1383, 95% CI −1072 to 3838; Day 5: MD 1210, 95% CI −1052 to 3472, respectively; 1 trial, 58 participants; very low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 3.14).

3.14 — Comparison 3: OMT plus routine treatment versus placebo plus routine treatment, Outcome 14: Mean leukocyte count

3.2.15 Inpatient sputum weight

Not reported.

Adverse events

Noll 2000 reported transient muscle tenderness emerging after treatment in two participants during the period of study. Noll 2010 reported three serious adverse events (not specified) in the OMT group, which resulted in early withdrawal.

4. Positive expiratory pressure plus routine treatment versus routine treatment alone

One trial including 98 participants (50 in treatment group and 48 in control group) evaluated this technique (Bjorkqvist 1997).

4.1 Primary outcomes

4.1.1 Mortality

No participants died during the period of study.

4.1.2 Cure rate

Not reported.

4.2 Secondary outcomes

4.2.1 Duration of hospital stay

Compared with routine treatment alone, positive expiratory pressure plus routine treatment may reduce mean duration of hospital stay by 1.4 days (MD −1.4 days, 95% CI −2.77 to −0.03; 1 trial, 98 participants; very low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 4.1).

4.1 — Comparison 4: Positive expiratory pressure plus routine treatment versus routine treatment alone, Outcome 1: Duration of hospital stay

4.2.2 Healing time

Not reported.

4.2.3 Duration of fever

Positive expiratory pressure may reduce mean duration of fever by 0.7 days (MD −0.7 days, 95% CI −1.36 to −0.04; 1 trial, 98 participants; very low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 4.2).

4.2 — Comparison 4: Positive expiratory pressure plus routine treatment versus routine treatment alone, Outcome 2: Duration of fever

4.2.4 Rate of improvement of chest X‐ray

Not reported.

4.2.5 Duration of antibiotic therapy

Not reported.

4.2.6 Duration of sputum production

Not reported.

4.2.7 Duration of mechanical ventilation

Not reported.

4.2.8 Duration of ICU stay

Not reported.

4.2.9 Time to clinical stability

Not reported.

4.2.10 Rate of in‐hospital respiratory failure

Not reported.

4.2.11 Rate of 60‐day hospital readmission

Not reported.

4.2.12 Duration of leukocytosis

Not reported.

4.2.13 Change in leukocyte count

Not reported.

4.2.14 Mean leukocyte count

Not reported.

4.2.15 Inpatient sputum weight

Not reported.

Adverse effects

No side effects were found during the study period (Bjorkqvist 1997).

5. High‐frequency chest wall oscillation plus fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage versus fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage alone

We included a new RCT focusing on this technique in this update (Shi 2017). Shi 2017 included 286 severe pneumonia patients receiving mechanical ventilation (143 in treatment group and 143 in control group).

5.1 Primary outcomes

5.1.1 Mortality

Compared with fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage alone, high‐frequency chest wall oscillation plus fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage may have little to no effect on mortality (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.29; 1 trial, 286 participants; very low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 5.1).

5.1 — Comparison 5: High‐frequency chest wall oscillation plus fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage versus fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage alone, Outcome 1: Mortality

5.1.2 Cure rate

Not reported.

5.2 Secondary outcomes

5.2.1 Duration of hospital stay

Not reported.

5.2.2 Healing time

Not reported.

5.2.3 Duration of fever

Not reported.

5.2.4 Rate of improvement of chest X‐ray

Not reported.

5.2.5 Duration of antibiotic therapy

Not reported.

5.2.6 Duration of sputum production

Not reported.

5.2.7 Duration of mechanical ventilation

Compared with fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage alone, high‐frequency chest wall oscillation plus fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage may reduce mean duration of mechanical ventilation by Day 3 (MD −3.0 days, 95% CI −3.68 to −2.32; 1 trial, 286 participants; very low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 5.2).

5.2 — Comparison 5: High‐frequency chest wall oscillation plus fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage versus fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage alone, Outcome 2: Duration of mechanical ventilation

5.2.8 Duration of ICU stay

Compared with the fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage alone, high‐frequency chest wall oscillation plus fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage may reduce mean duration of ICU stay by 3.8 days (MD −3.8 days, 95% CI −5.00 to −2.60; 1 trial, 286 participants; very low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 5.3).

5.3 — Comparison 5: High‐frequency chest wall oscillation plus fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage versus fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage alone, Outcome 3: Duration of ICU stay

5.2.9 Time to clinical stability

Not reported.

5.2.10 Rate of in‐hospital respiratory failure

Not reported.

5.2.11 Rate of 60‐day hospital readmission

Not reported.

5.2.12 Duration of leukocytosis

Not reported.

5.2.13 Change in leukocyte count

Not reported.

5.2.14 Mean leukocyte count

Not reported.

5.2.15 Inpatient sputum weight

Not reported.

Adverse effects

Not reported.

Discussion

Summary of main results

We included eight RCTs with 974 participants in this review. We included two new RCTs (540 participants) in this 2022 update. The included RCTs looked at five types of chest physiotherapies: conventional chest physiotherapy, active cycle of breathing techniques, OMT, positive expiratory pressure, and high‐frequency chest wall oscillation. None of these techniques was found to improve mortality in adult patients with pneumonia. Very uncertain evidence indicated that OMT might improve the cure rate of pneumonia, but not the rate of chest X‐ray improvement. Conventional chest physiotherapy and active cycle of breathing techniques did not increase the cure rate of pneumonia or the rate of chest X‐ray improvement. Positive expiratory pressure did reduce the mean duration of hospital stay by 1.4 days, whereas OMT, conventional chest physiotherapy, and active cycle of breathing techniques did not. Positive expiratory pressure may reduce the duration of fever, whilst OMT may not. Furthermore, this update found new evidence that high‐frequency chest wall oscillation combined with fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage, compared with fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage alone, may reduce the mean duration of ICU stay and the mean duration of mechanical ventilation in participants with severe pneumonia who are receiving mechanical ventilation.

Overall completeness and applicability of evidence

Despite the fact that nearly 10 years have passed since the 2012 version of this review, only two relevant RCTs were included in this update. The remaining six included RCTs were conducted around 20 to 40 years ago. The main positive conclusions (a decrease in duration of hospital stay, fever, antibiotic treatment, and mechanical ventilation) were based on four trials with small sample sizes. There have been advances in chest physiotherapies that have not yet been evaluated in people with pneumonia in RCTs. For example, in this review, most included studies addressed CAP, whereas Noll 2010 included some nursing home‐acquired pneumonia patients (81/387). Shi 2017 included severe pneumonia patients receiving mechanical ventilation in ICU, but the types of pneumonia (CAP or hospital‐acquired pneumonia (HAP)) were unclear. We did not find any studies assessing the effectiveness or safety of chest physiotherapy for treating HAP or ventilation‐acquired pneumonia.

It has been reported that the duration, sessions, and quality of chest physiotherapies vary from case to case (Guessous 2008). Misleading results may occur if the treatments are administered by unskilled practitioners. However, information on the experience and training of the physiotherapists who implemented the treatments was not available in most of the included trials. The techniques, the number and duration of sessions, and the duration of the intervention period also varied across trials. Consequently, caution is advised when interpreting the results of this review and applying them to current practice.

Certainty of the evidence

We assessed the evidence for all outcomes in this review as of very low certainty. Firstly, although all trials stated that randomisation was used, only two trials mentioned the method of randomisation (Noll 2010; Shi 2017). Secondly, only three of the eight studies were double‐blinded trials (in which participants and outcome assessors were blinded) (Noll 1999; Noll 2000; Noll 2010), and one study was a single‐blinded trial (Britton 1985). Lack of blinding may cause overestimation of the effects. It should be noted that chest physiotherapy was performed by a physiotherapist, so it might be difficult to blind the practitioners. Thirdly, four of the eight studies had more than 10% dropout, but none used an intention‐to‐treat (ITT) analysis, which aims to maintain the unbiased group comparison afforded by randomisation and to resolve the problem of non‐compliance (Bjorkqvist 1997; Britton 1985; Graham 1978; Tydeman 1989). The absence of an ITT analysis might lead to potential biases. Finally, the sample sizes of the eight trials were too small to permit adequate assessment of the intervention being evaluated. Moreover, there were challenges in obtaining high‐certainty evidence for physiotherapy interventions because of the difficulties in blinding the intervention, standardising the method of chest physiotherapy, and defining clinically meaningful outcomes.

Potential biases in the review process

We were unable to perform a funnel plot analysis to assess potential publication bias because of the limited number of trials for each outcome. The publication date of the included studies varied from 1978 to 2017, which implies that definitions of care and cure, plus medical management (including the methods of chest physiotherapy), may have differed across trials significantly. For these reasons, clinical heterogeneity was inevitable, which may have led to bias when we combined the results of different studies in a meta‐analysis.

Most of the included trials had small sample sizes. If studies are small, skewed data can lead to misleading results when analysing continuous outcomes. Unfortunately, the included trials did not provide sufficient information for us to evaluate the probability of skewed outcome data.

Agreements and disagreements with other studies or reviews

Although chest physiotherapy has been widely used in pneumonia, there is little evidence of any benefit (Guessous 2008). To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to examine chest physiotherapy for pneumonia in adults. We did not find any systematic reviews or meta‐analyses that addressed this issue when we screened the search results from the major medical databases. According to our results, chest physiotherapy has no benefit for mortality and cure rate. Chest physiotherapy can be costly, as it requires equipment and experienced respiratory therapists, physiotherapists, or clinicians to perform (Guessous 2008). We therefore advise caution when prescribing chest physiotherapy for adults with pneumonia, especially for mild to moderate pneumonia.

Authors' conclusions

Implications for practice.

The inclusion of two new trials in this update did not change the main conclusions of the original review. The current evidence is very uncertain about the effect of chest physiotherapy on improving mortality and cure rate in adults with pneumonia. Very low‐certainty evidence shows that positive expiratory pressure may reduce hospital stay and duration of fever. New, very low‐certainty evidence shows that high‐frequency chest wall oscillation may reduce mean duration of intensive care unit stay and mechanical ventilation in severe pneumonia patients who received mechanical ventilation. However, the current evidence does not support chest physiotherapy as a conventional adjunctive treatment for pneumonia in adults.

Implications for research.

Further well‐designed randomised controlled trials addressing the role of chest physiotherapy for pneumonia in adults may be warranted. The following key points should be considered in future studies: appropriate sample size with power to detect expected difference, clearly defined different types of pneumonia, rigorous standardisation of the method of chest physiotherapy, an appropriate comparator therapy, appropriate and standardised outcomes (the following categories might be included: mortality, cure rate, improvements in symptoms, improvements in laboratory results, duration of hospital stay, duration of antibiotic or other therapies, and quality of life), the cost‐effectiveness of the chest physiotherapy, and evaluation of patient satisfaction with physiotherapy.

What's new

Date	Event	Description
25 May 2022	New search has been performed	We updated our searches. We included two new trials (Noll 2010; Shi 2017). We excluded eight new trials (Ahmed 2021; Cao 2020; Jose 2016; Lopez‐Lopez 2019; Martín‐Salvador 2016; Valenza 2016; Wang 2020; Xu 2021), and excluded all six trials previously assessed as awaiting classification (Facto 1947; Kuznetsov 1976; Kuznetsov 1980a; Kuznetsov 1980b; Sedov 1975; Vorob'ev 1984). We identified one ongoing study (NCT05007457).
25 May 2022	New citation required but conclusions have not changed	Our conclusions remain unchanged.

Open in a new tab

History

Protocol first published: Issue 1, 2007 Review first published: Issue 2, 2010

Date	Event	Description
21 November 2011	New search has been performed	Searches conducted.
9 September 2010	Amended	Contact details updated.
5 August 2010	Amended	Contact details updated.
12 August 2008	Amended	Converted to new review format

Open in a new tab

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the authors of the original review: Yuping Yan, Xiangli Yin, Binyou Wang, Taixiang Wu, Guanjian Liu, and Birong Dong.

We appreciate Qiukui Hao for his kind help in obtaining the full texts of the publications assessed as awaiting classification in the 2013 publication of this review (Yang 2013).

The following people conducted the editorial process for this review update.

Sign‐off Editors (final editorial decision): Mark Jones (Bond University, Australia); Mieke van Driel (The University of Queensland, Australia).
Managing Editors (provided editorial guidance to authors, edited the review, selected peer reviewers, collated peer‐reviewer comments): Liz Dooley (Bond University, Australia); Fiona Russell (Bond University, Australia).
Contact Editor (provided valuable comments during the process of updating this review, and recommended an editorial decision): Johannes C van der Wouden (Amsterdam UMC, the Netherlands).
Statistical Editor (provided comments): Menelaos Konstantinidis (Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Canada).
Copy Editor (copy‐editing and production): Lisa Winer, Cochrane Copy Edit Support.

The following peer reviewers provided comments and recommended an editorial decision.

Clinical/content review: (provided comments but chose not to be publicly acknowledged in this update).
Consumer review: Janet Wale (Consumer Advocate, Australia).
Methods review: Rachel Richardson (Associate Editor, Cochrane, UK).
Search review: Justin Clark (Institute for Evidence‐Based Healthcare, Bond University, Australia).

Appendices

Appendix 1. Previous search in the original version of review

In the original version of this review, the authors searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 3), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register; MEDLINE (1966 to August Week 1, 2009); EMBASE (1974 to August 2009); CBM (1978 to August 2009); the National Research Register (August 2009); and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) (1929 to August 2009).

The following search strategies were used.

MEDLINE (OVID)

#1 exp pneumonia/ #2 exp respiratory tract infections/ #3 (pneumonia$ or lung inflammation$ or respiratory tract infection$ or respiratory infection$).mp. #4 1 or 2 or 3 #5 exp physical therapy modalities/ #6 exp drainage, postural/ #7 exp vibration/ #8 exp positive‐pressure respiration/ #9 exp breathing exercises/ #10 exp electric stimulation therapy/ #11 exp massage/ #12 exp musculoskeletal manipulations/ #13 (physical therap$ or physiotherapy$ or physical treatment$ or postural drainag$ or chest clap$ or chest percussion or chest shak$ or oscillati$ or vibration or directed cough$ or forced exhalation or forced expiration or positive pressure ventilation or positive expiratory pressure or breathing exercise$ or diaphragmatic breathing or thoracic expansion exercise$ or breathing train$ or ventilatory muscle train$ or electrostimulation or huff$ or massag$).mp. #14 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 #15 4 and 14 #16 randomized controlled trial.pt. #17 controlled clinical trial.pt. #18 randomized.ab. #19 placebo.ab. #20 randomly.ab. #21 trial.ab. #22 groups.ab. #23 16 or 17 or 18 or 19 or 20 or 21 or 22 #24 15 and 23

See: Appendix 2, Appendix 4 and Appendix 5 for individual search strategies for CBM, EMBASE and PEDro respectively.

CBM search strategy (in Chinese)

#1 pneumonia/exp #2 "respiratory tract infections"/exp #3 pneumonia or "respiratory tract infection" #4 #1 or #2 or #3 #5 "physical therapy modalities"/exp #6 "drainage, postural"/exp #7 "positive‐pressure respiration"/exp #8 "breathing exercises"/exp #9 "electric stimulation therapy"/exp #10 "massage"/exp #11 "physical therapy" or "postural drainage" or "chest clap" or "chest percussion" or vibration or "forced exhalation" or "positive pressure ventilation" or "breathing exercise" or "thoracic expansion exercise" or "ventilatory muscle train" or "electrostimulation" or "massage" #12 #5 or #6 or #7 or #8 or #9 or #10 or #11 #13 #4 and #12

EMBASE search strategy (via EMBASE.COM)

#1 'pneumonia'/exp #2 'respiratory tract infections'/exp #3 pneumonia* or lung inflammation* or respiratory tract infection* or respiratory infection* #4 #1 or #2 or #3 #5 'physical therapy modalities'/exp #6 'drainage, postural'/exp #7 'vibration'/exp #8 'positive‐pressure respiration'/exp #9 'breathing exercises'/exp #10 'electric stimulation therapy'/exp #11 'massage'/exp #12 'musculoskeletal manipulations'/exp #13 physical therap* or physiotherapy* or physical treatment* or postural drainag* or chest clap* or chest percussion or chest shak* or oscillati* or vibration or directed cough* or forced exhalation or forced expiration or positive pressure ventilation or positive expiratory pressure or breathing exercise* or diaphragmatic breathing or thoracic expansion exercise* or breathing train* or ventilatory muscle train* or electrostimulation or huff* or massag* #14 #5 or #6 or #7 or #8 or #9 or #10 or #11 or #12 or #13 #15 #4 and #14 #16 'randomized controlled trial':it #17 'controlled clinical trial':it #18 randomized:ab #19 placebo:ab #20 randomly:ab #21 trial:ab #22 groups:ab #23 #16 or #17 or #18 or #19 or #20 or #21 or #22 #24 #15 and #23

PEDro search strategy

#1 pneumonia AND "physical therapy" #2 "respiratory tract infection" AND "physical therapy" #3 #1 OR #2

Appendix 2. Previous search in the 2012 update

In the 2012 update, the authors searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2012, Issue 11, part of The Cochrane Library, www.thecochranelibrary.com (accessed 21 November 2012), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (August 2009 to November week 2, 2012), EMBASE (August 2009 to November 2012), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) (August 2009 to November 2012), CINAHL (2009 to November 2012) and CBM (1978 to November 2012).

The following search strategies were used.

MEDLINE (OVID) search strategy

Embase.com search strategy

#36 #32 AND #35 #35 #33 OR #34 #34 random*:ab,ti OR placebo*:ab,ti OR factorial*:ab,ti OR crossover*:ab,ti OR 'cross over':ab,ti OR 'cross‐over':ab,ti OR volunteer*:ab,ti OR assign*:ab,ti OR allocat*:ab,ti OR ((singl* OR doubl*) NEAR/1 blind*):ab,ti #33 'randomized controlled trial'/exp OR 'single blind procedure'/exp OR 'double blind procedure'/exp OR 'crossover procedure'/exp #32 #9 AND #31 #31 #10 OR #11 OR #12 OR #13 OR #14 OR #15 OR #16 OR #17 OR #18 OR #19 OR #20 OR #21 OR #22 OR #23 OR #24 OR #25 OR #26 OR #27 OR #28 OR #29 OR #30 #30 (osteopath* NEAR/3 (manipulat* OR treatment* OR therap* OR techniq*)):ab,ti #29 ((respirat* OR ventilat*) NEAR/2 'muscle training'):ab,ti #28 massag*:ab,ti #27 electrostimulat*:ab,ti AND [embase]/lim 1947 #26 'positive pressure ventilation':ab,ti OR 'positive expiratory pressure':ab,ti #25 (breath* NEAR/2 (control* OR techni* OR train* OR exercis*)):ab,ti #24 (cough* NEAR/2 (directed OR maneuver* OR manoeuver* OR techniq*)):ab,ti #23 (forced NEAR/2 (exhal* OR expir*)):ab,ti #22 ((chest OR thora*) NEAR/3 (clap* OR shak* OR compress)):ab,ti #21 oscillat*:ab,ti OR vibrat*:ab,ti OR percuss*:ab,ti OR huff*:ab,ti #20 'postural drainage':ab,ti OR (patient* NEAR/3 position*):ab,ti #19 'manipulative medicine'/exp #18 'electrostimulation therapy'/de #17 'massage'/de #16 'electrostimulation'/de #15 'breathing exercise'/de #14 'postural drainage'/de #13 'positive end expiratory pressure'/de OR 'forced expiration'/de #12 'vibration'/de OR 'high frequency oscillation'/de OR 'oscillation'/de OR 'whole body vibration'/de #11 physiotherap*:ab,ti OR 'physio therapy':ab,ti OR (physical NEAR/1 (therap* OR treatment*)):ab,ti #10 'physiotherapy'/exp #9 #1 OR #2 OR #3 OR #4 OR #5 OR #6 OR #7 OR # 8197040 #8 (pleural NEAR/2 (effusion OR empyema)):ab,ti OR pleurisy:ab,ti #7 'pleurisy'/exp #6 (lung NEAR/2 (inflamm* OR infect*)):ab,ti #5 (lower NEAR/3 'respiratory tract infection'):ab,ti OR (lower NEAR/3 'respiratory tract infections'):ab,ti OR (lower NEAR/3 'respiratory infection'):ab,ti OR (lower NEAR/3 'respiratory infections'):ab,ti OR lrti:ab,ti #4 'lower respiratory tract infection'/de #3 bronchopneumon*:ab,ti OR pleuropneumon*:ab,ti #2 pneumon*:ab,ti #1 'pneumonia'/exp

CINAHL (EBSCO) search strategy

S40 S30 AND S39 S39 S31 OR S32 OR S33 OR S34 OR S35 OR S36 OR S37 OR S38 S38 (MH "Quantitative Studies") S37 TI placebo* OR AB placebo* S36 (MH "Placebos") S35 TI random* OR AB random* S34 TI ((singl* or doubl* or trebl* or tripl*) W1 (blind* or mask*)) OR AB ((singl* or doubl* or trebl* or tripl*) W1 (blind* or mask*)) S33 TI clinic* W1 trial* OR AB clinic* W1 trial* S32 PT clinical trial S31 (MH "Clinical Trials+") S30 S10 AND S29 S S29 S11 OR S12 OR S13 OR S14 OR S15 OR S16 OR S17 OR S18 OR S19 OR S20 OR S21 OR S22 OR S23 OR S24 OR S25 OR S26 OR S27 OR S28 S28 TI (osteopath* N3 (manipulat* or treatment* or therap* or techni*)) OR AB (osteopath* N3 (manipulat* or treatment* or therap* or techni*)) S27 TI ((respirat* or ventilat*) N2 muscle train*) OR AB ((respirat* or ventilat*) N2 muscle train*) S26 TI massag* OR AB massag* S25 TI electrostimulat* OR AB electrostimulat* S24 TI (positive pressure ventilation* or positive expiratory pressure*) OR AB (positive pressure ventilation* or positive expiratory pressure*) S23 TI (breath* N2 (control* or techni* or train* or exercis*)) OR AB (breath* N2 (control* or techni* or train* or exercis*)) S22 TI ( cough* N2 (directed or maneuver* or manoeuver* or techni*) ) OR AB (cough* N2 (directed or maneuver* or manoeuver* or techni*)) S21 TI (forced N2 (exhal* or exhil*)) OR AB (forced N2 (exhal* or exhil*)) S20 TI ((chest* or thora*) N3 (clap* or shak* or compress*)) OR AB ((chest* or thora*) N3 (clap* or shak* or compress*)) S19 TI (oscillat* or vibrat* or percuss* or huff*) OR AB (oscillat* or vibrat* or percuss* or huff*) S18 TI patient* N3 position* OR AB patient* N3 position* S17 TI postural drain* OR AB postural drain* S16 (MH "Drainage, Postural") S15 (MH "Positive Pressure Ventilation+") S14 (MH "Respiratory Therapy+") S13 (MH "Vibration") S12 TI (physiotherap* or physical therap* or physical treatment*) OR AB (physiotherap* or physical therap* or physical treatment*) S11 (MH "Physical Therapy+") S10 S1 OR S2 OR S3 OR S4 OR S5 OR S6 OR S7 OR S8 OR S9 S9 TI pleurisy OR AB pleurisy S8 TI (pleural N3 (empyema or effusion*)) OR AB (pleural N3 (empyema or effusion*)) S7 (MH "Empyema") OR (MH "Pleural Effusion") OR (MH "Pleurisy") S6 TI (lung* N3 (inflam* or infect*)) OR AB (lung* N3 (inflam* or infect*)) S5 TI (lower respiratory tract infection* or lower respiratory infection* or lrti) OR AB (lower respiratory tract infection* or lower respiratory infection* or lrti) S4 (MH "Respiratory Tract Infections") S3 TI (bronchopneumon* or pleuropneumon*) OR AB (bronchopneumon* or pleuropneumon*) S2 TI pneumon* OR AB pneumon* S1 (MH "Pneumonia+")

PEDro search strategy

Abstract and title: pneumonia Method: clinical trial New records added since: 6 January 2009

Appendix 3. MEDLINE and CENTRAL search strategy in this update

MEDLINE and CENTRAL (via OvidSP)

1 exp Pneumonia/ 2 pneumon*.tw. 3 (bronchopneumon* or pleuropneumon*).tw. 4 Respiratory Tract Infections/ 5 (lower respiratory tract infection* or lower respiratory infection* or lrti).tw. 6 (lung adj3 (inflamm* or infect*)).tw. 7 empyema, pleural/ or pleural effusion/ or exp pleurisy/ 8 (pleural adj3 (empyema or effusion*)).tw. 9 pleurisy.tw. 10 or/1‐9 11 exp Physical Therapy Modalities/ 12 (physiotherap* or physical therap* or physical treatment*).tw. 13 Vibration/ 14 exp Respiratory Therapy/ 15 exp Positive‐Pressure Respiration/ 16 postural drain*.tw. 17 (patient* adj3 position*).tw. 18 (oscillat* or vibrat* or percuss* or huff*).tw. 19 ((chest or thora*) adj3 (clap* or shak* or compress*)).tw. 20 (forced adj2 (exhal* or expir*)).tw. 21 (cough* adj2 (directed or maneuver* or manoeuver* or techniqu*)).tw. 22 (breath* adj2 (control* or techni* or train* or exercis*)).tw. 23 positive pressure ventilation*.tw. 24 positive expiratory pressure*.tw. 25 electrostimulat*.tw. 26 massag*.tw. 27 ((respirat* or ventilat*) adj2 muscle train*).tw. 28 (osteopath* adj3 (manipulat* or treatment* or therap* or techniq*)).tw. 29 or/11‐28 30 10 and 29

Appendix 4. Embase search strategy in this update

#36 #32 AND #35  #35 #33 OR #34  #34 random*:ab,ti OR placebo*:ab,ti OR factorial*:ab,ti OR crossover*:ab,ti OR 'cross over':ab,ti OR 'cross‐over':ab,ti OR volunteer*:ab,ti OR assign*:ab,ti OR allocat*:ab,ti OR ((singl* OR doubl*) NEAR/1 blind*):ab,ti  #33 'randomized controlled trial'/exp OR 'single blind procedure'/exp OR 'double blind procedure'/exp OR 'crossover procedure'/exp  #32 #9 AND #31  #31 #10 OR #11 OR #12 OR #13 OR #14 OR #15 OR #16 OR #17 OR #18 OR #19 OR #20 OR #21 OR #22 OR #23 OR #24 OR #25 OR #26 OR #27 OR #28 OR #29 OR #30  #30 (osteopath* NEAR/3 (manipulat* OR treatment* OR therap* OR techniq*)):ab,ti  #29 ((respirat* OR ventilat*) NEAR/2 'muscle training'):ab,ti  #28 massag*:ab,ti  #27 electrostimulat*:ab,ti AND [embase]/lim 1947 #26 'positive pressure ventilation':ab,ti OR 'positive expiratory pressure':ab,ti  #25 (breath* NEAR/2 (control* OR techni* OR train* OR exercis*)):ab,ti  #24 (cough* NEAR/2 (directed OR maneuver* OR manoeuver* OR techniq*)):ab,ti  #23 (forced NEAR/2 (exhal* OR expir*)):ab,ti  #22 ((chest OR thora*) NEAR/3 (clap* OR shak* OR compress)):ab,ti  #21 oscillat*:ab,ti OR vibrat*:ab,ti OR percuss*:ab,ti OR huff*:ab,ti  #20 'postural drainage':ab,ti OR (patient* NEAR/3 position*):ab,ti  #19 'manipulative medicine'/exp  #18 'electrostimulation therapy'/de  #17 'massage'/de  #16 'electrostimulation'/de  #15 'breathing exercise'/de  #14 'postural drainage'/de  #13 'positive end expiratory pressure'/de OR 'forced expiration'/de  #12 'vibration'/de OR 'high frequency oscillation'/de OR 'oscillation'/de OR 'whole body vibration'/de  #11 physiotherap*:ab,ti OR 'physio therapy':ab,ti OR (physical NEAR/1 (therap* OR treatment*)):ab,ti  #10 'physiotherapy'/exp  #9 #1 OR #2 OR #3 OR #4 OR #5 OR #6 OR #7 OR # 8197040 #8 (pleural NEAR/2 (effusion OR empyema)):ab,ti OR pleurisy:ab,ti  #7 'pleurisy'/exp  #6 (lung NEAR/2 (inflamm* OR infect*)):ab,ti  #5 (lower NEAR/3 'respiratory tract infection'):ab,ti OR (lower NEAR/3 'respiratory tract infections'):ab,ti OR (lower NEAR/3 'respiratory infection'):ab,ti OR (lower NEAR/3 'respiratory infections'):ab,ti OR lrti:ab,ti  #4 'lower respiratory tract infection'/de  #3 bronchopneumon*:ab,ti OR pleuropneumon*:ab,ti  #2 pneumon*:ab,ti  #1 'pneumonia'/exp

Appendix 5. PEDro search strategy in this update

Abstract and title: pneumonia Method: clinical trial New records added since: November 2012

Appendix 6. CINAHL (EBSCO) search strategy in this update

S40 S30 AND S39  S39 S31 OR S32 OR S33 OR S34 OR S35 OR S36 OR S37 OR S38  S38 (MH "Quantitative Studies")  S37 TI placebo* OR AB placebo*  S36 (MH "Placebos")  S35 TI random* OR AB random*  S34 TI ((singl* or doubl* or trebl* or tripl*) W1 (blind* or mask*)) OR AB ((singl* or doubl* or trebl* or tripl*) W1 (blind* or mask*))  S33 TI clinic* W1 trial* OR AB clinic* W1 trial*  S32 PT clinical trial  S31 (MH "Clinical Trials+")  S30 S10 AND S29 S S29 S11 OR S12 OR S13 OR S14 OR S15 OR S16 OR S17 OR S18 OR S19 OR S20 OR S21 OR S22 OR S23 OR S24 OR S25 OR S26 OR S27 OR S28  S28 TI (osteopath* N3 (manipulat* or treatment* or therap* or techni*)) OR AB (osteopath* N3 (manipulat* or treatment* or therap* or techni*)) S27 TI ((respirat* or ventilat*) N2 muscle train*) OR AB ((respirat* or ventilat*) N2 muscle train*)  S26 TI massag* OR AB massag*  S25 TI electrostimulat* OR AB electrostimulat*  S24 TI (positive pressure ventilation* or positive expiratory pressure*) OR AB (positive pressure ventilation* or positive expiratory pressure*) S23 TI (breath* N2 (control* or techni* or train* or exercis*)) OR AB (breath* N2 (control* or techni* or train* or exercis*))  S22 TI ( cough* N2 (directed or maneuver* or manoeuver* or techni*) ) OR AB (cough* N2 (directed or maneuver* or manoeuver* or techni*))  S21 TI (forced N2 (exhal* or exhil*)) OR AB (forced N2 (exhal* or exhil*))  S20 TI ((chest* or thora*) N3 (clap* or shak* or compress*)) OR AB ((chest* or thora*) N3 (clap* or shak* or compress*))  S19 TI (oscillat* or vibrat* or percuss* or huff*) OR AB (oscillat* or vibrat* or percuss* or huff*)  S18 TI patient* N3 position* OR AB patient* N3 position*  S17 TI postural drain* OR AB postural drain*  S16 (MH "Drainage, Postural")  S15 (MH "Positive Pressure Ventilation+")  S14 (MH "Respiratory Therapy+")  S13 (MH "Vibration")  S12 TI (physiotherap* or physical therap* or physical treatment*) OR AB (physiotherap* or physical therap* or physical treatment*)  S11 (MH "Physical Therapy+")  S10 S1 OR S2 OR S3 OR S4 OR S5 OR S6 OR S7 OR S8 OR S9  S9 TI pleurisy OR AB pleurisy  S8 TI (pleural N3 (empyema or effusion*)) OR AB (pleural N3 (empyema or effusion*))  S7 (MH "Empyema") OR (MH "Pleural Effusion") OR (MH "Pleurisy")  S6 TI (lung* N3 (inflam* or infect*)) OR AB (lung* N3 (inflam* or infect*))  S5 TI (lower respiratory tract infection* or lower respiratory infection* or lrti) OR AB (lower respiratory tract infection* or lower respiratory infection* or lrti)  S4 (MH "Respiratory Tract Infections")  S3 TI (bronchopneumon* or pleuropneumon*) OR AB (bronchopneumon* or pleuropneumon*)  S2 TI pneumon* OR AB pneumon*  S1 (MH "Pneumonia+")

Data and analyses

Comparison 1. Conventional chest physiotherapy plus routine treatment versus routine treatment alone.

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1.1 Mortality	2	225	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.03 [0.15, 7.13]
1.2 Cure rate	2	225	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.93 [0.56, 1.55]
1.3 Duration of hospital stay	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
1.4 Duration of fever	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
1.5 Rate of improvement of chest X‐ray	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

Open in a new tab

Comparison 2. Active cycle of breathing techniques plus routine treatment versus routine treatment alone.

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	Statistical method	Effect size
2.1 Cure rate	1	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
2.2 Duration of hospital stay	1	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
2.3 Rate of improvement of chest X‐ray	1	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
2.4 Duration of antibiotic therapy	1	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
2.5 Duration of sputum production	1	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
2.5.1 Inpatient	1	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
2.5.2 Outpatient	1	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
2.6 Inpatient sputum weight	1	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

Open in a new tab

Comparison 3. OMT plus routine treatment versus placebo plus routine treatment.

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
3.1 Mortality	3	327	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.43 [0.12, 1.50]
3.2 Cure rate	2	79	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.59 [1.01, 2.51]
3.3 Duration of hospital stay	3	333	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐1.08 [‐2.39, 0.23]
3.4 Duration of fever	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
3.5 Rate of improvement of chest X‐ray	2	75	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.21 [0.84, 1.74]
3.6 Duration of total antibiotic therapy	3	333	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐1.07 [‐2.37, 0.23]
3.7 Duration of intervenous antibiotic therapy	3	333	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐1.28 [‐2.97, 0.41]
3.8 Duration of oral antibiotic therapy	2	79	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.97 [‐1.25, 3.20]
3.9 Time to clinical stability	1	239	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.00 [‐0.38, 0.38]
3.10 Rate of in‐hospital respiratory failure	1	248	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.00 [0.26, 3.91]
3.11 Rate of 60‐day hospital readmission	1	189	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.83 [0.46, 1.49]
3.12 Duration of leukocytosis	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
3.13 Change in leukocyte count	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
3.13.1 Change between Day 3 and 1 from admission	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
3.13.2 Change between Day 5 and 1 from admission	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
3.14 Mean leukocyte count	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
3.14.1 Day 3 from admission	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
3.14.2 Day 5 from admission	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

Open in a new tab

Comparison 4. Positive expiratory pressure plus routine treatment versus routine treatment alone.

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
4.1 Duration of hospital stay	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
4.2 Duration of fever	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

Open in a new tab

Comparison 5. High‐frequency chest wall oscillation plus fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage versus fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage alone.

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
5.1 Mortality	1	286	Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.75 [0.17, 3.29]
5.2 Duration of mechanical ventilation	1	286	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐3.00 [‐3.68, ‐2.32]
5.3 Duration of ICU stay	1	286	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐3.80 [‐5.00, ‐2.60]

Open in a new tab

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Bjorkqvist 1997.

*Study characteristics*
Methods	Randomised, parallel‐group trial
Participants	Inpatient setting; relevant details of health status of participants 50 treatment, 48 control 16 to 95 years old (mean 65) Male/female: 84/61 The trial was conducted in Sweden.
Interventions	The physiotherapy was positive expiratory pressure (PEP). In this study a bottle containing 10 cm of tap water was used. Participants were asked to sit up with their feet on the floor and to blow bubbles at a calm speed into the bottle through a plastic tube (10 mm in diameter) with an air pressure just sufficient to overcome the resistance of the water. This method was used 20 times per hour from 9 am to 8 pm and continued after discharge. This study consisted of three groups (A, B, C). Group A was control, which underwent early mobilisation and "huffing". Group B members were given the same as A and deep breaths. Group C members were given the same as A and the method of bottle‐blowing.
Outcomes	Primary outcome: death Secondary outcomes: duration of hospital stay (days); fever clearance time; CRP; VC; FEV1; PEF
Notes	The study was supported financially by the Orebro County Council Research Committee and the Orebro Medical Center Research Foundation.
*Risk of bias*
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Randomisation method was not clearly reported.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"Sealed envelopes" were used.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	No blinding
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	No blinding
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	"There were 19 drop‐outs (13%) during the study: 6 patients were unable to participate (2 in group A, 3 in group B and 1 in group C) as they became too tired to do any training and blow into the vitalograph, 7 patients wished to discontinue the trial after enrolment (2 in group A, 4 in group B and 1 in group C), and 6 patients were considered by a physician or physiotherapist to be in need of chest physiotherapy after 1 or 2 days (4 in group A and 2 in group B)." Although ITT analysis was performed, the method of the imputation for missing data was not reported. The impact of the missing data on the results was unclear.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information
Other bias	Unclear risk	Insufficient information

Open in a new tab

Britton 1985.

*Study characteristics*
Methods	Randomised, parallel‐group, single‐blind trial
Participants	Inpatient setting; relevant details of health status of participants 83 treatment, 88 control 15 to 75 years old (control: 47.2, treatment: 47.4) Male/female: 74/97 The trial was conducted in Sweden.
Interventions	The chest physiotherapy consisted of postural drainage, external help with breathing, percussion and vibration. The placebo was to receive advice on expectoration, deep breathing, and how to exercise to avoid thrombosis
Outcomes	Primary outcomes: death; cure rate Secondary outcomes: duration of hospital stay (days); healing time (days); fever clearance time; FEV1
Notes	The study was approved by the ethical committee of the Karolinska Hospital, Stockholm. Sources of funding were not stated.
*Risk of bias*
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Randomisation method was not clearly reported.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"Sealed envelopes" were used.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	The participants and personnel were not blinded.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	The outcome assessors were blinded.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information
Other bias	Unclear risk	Insufficient information

Open in a new tab

Graham 1978.

*Study characteristics*
Methods	Randomised, parallel‐group trial
Participants	Inpatient setting; relevant details of health status of participants 27 treatment, 27 control Age (mean ± SD): control: 63 ± 3 years old, treatment: 61 ± 4 years old Male/female: control 13/14, treatment 14/13 The trial was conducted in Sweden.
Interventions	The chest physiotherapy consisted of postural drainage, chest percussion and vibration, with encouragement of deep breathing and coughing. This therapy was used concomitantly with intermittent positive pressure breathing every 4 hours during the first 24 hours. Therapy was given for at least 3 days to all the treated participants, with an average duration of 5 days.
Outcomes	Primary outcomes: death; cure rate Secondary outcomes: duration of hospital stay (days); rate of clearing of X‐ray film; fever clearance time
Notes	The study was supported by a grant (PHS 17292) to the Vermont Lung Center from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health.
*Risk of bias*
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Randomisation method was not described.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"Sealed envelopes" were used.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information
Other bias	Unclear risk	Insufficient information

Open in a new tab

Noll 1999.

*Study characteristics*
Methods	Randomised, parallel‐group, double‐blind trial
Participants	Inpatient setting; relevant details of health status of participants 11 treatment, 10 control Mean age: control 78.7 years, treatment 82.5 years Male/female: control 3/7, treatment 3/8 The trial was conducted in the United States.
Interventions	Participants in the treatment group received a standardised OMT protocol treatment consisting of 7 osteopathic manipulative techniques and non‐standardised OMTs from an OMT specialist, whilst participants in the control group received a standardised light touch protocol treatment (sham treatment), with care taken not to move myofascial structures or to articulate joints. Each session lasted 10 to 15 minutes, and was administered twice per day.
Outcomes	Primary outcomes: death; cure rate Secondary outcomes: duration of hospital stay (days); rate of clearing of X‐ray film; duration of antibiotic therapy; duration of leukocytosis
Notes	American Osteopathic Association‐sponsored Burroughs Welcome Osteopathic Research Fellowship (F‐91‐06)
*Risk of bias*
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Randomisation method was not described.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	The participants were blinded.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	The outcome assessors were blinded.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	All participants completed the study, and there was no loss to follow‐up, no trial group changes, and no treatment withdrawals.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information
Other bias	Unclear risk	Insufficient information

Open in a new tab

Noll 2000.

*Study characteristics*
Methods	Randomised, double‐blind, parallel trial
Participants	Inpatient setting; relevant details of health status of participants 28 in treatment group; 30 in control group Age (mean ± SD): control group: 77.0 ± 17.2 years; treatment group: 77.7 ± 17.1 years Male/female: control group: 16/14; treatment group: 14/14 The trial was conducted in the United States.
Interventions	Participants in the treatment group received a standardised OMT protocol treatment consisting of 7 osteopathic manipulative techniques and non‐standardised OMTs from an OMT specialist, whilst participants in the control group received a standardised light touch protocol treatment (sham treatment), with care taken not to move myofascial structures or to articulate joints. Each session lasted 10 to 15 minutes, and was administered twice per day.
Outcomes	Primary outcomes: death; cure rate Secondary outcomes: duration of hospital stay (days); rate of clearing of X‐ray film; duration of antibiotic therapy; change in leukocyte count; mean leukocyte count
Notes	American Osteopathic Association grant no. 96‐11‐390
*Risk of bias*
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Randomisation method was not described.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	The participants were blinded.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	The outcome assessors were blinded.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	All participants completed the study, and there was no loss to follow‐up, no trial group changes, and no treatment withdrawals.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information
Other bias	Unclear risk	Insufficient information

Open in a new tab

Noll 2010.

*Study characteristics*
Methods	Multicentre, randomised, double‐blinded, controlled trial
Participants	Inpatient setting; relevant details of health status of participants 135 treatment, 136 sham treatment, 135 control Age (mean ± SD): treatment group: 73.8 ± 11.8 years; placebo treatment group: 74.6 ± 12.5 years; control group: 72.8 ± 12.6 years Male/female: 174/213 The trial was conducted in the United States.
Interventions	The physiotherapy was OMT. The control group received conventional care. The OMT group received conventional care plus OMT, which included thoracolumbar soft tissue, rib raising, doming of the diaphragm with myofascial release, cervical spine soft tissue, suboccipital decompression, thoracic inlet myofascial release, thoracic lymphatic pump, and pedal pump. The placebo treatment group received conventional care plus light touch to the same body regions in the same sequence and duration as the OMT protocol. The OMT and placebo treatment groups received protocol treatments for 15 minutes, twice daily (≥ 6 hours apart) beginning within 24 hours of admission.
Outcomes	Primary outcomes: hospital length of stay and time to clinical stability. Secondary outcomes: durations of in‐hospital antibiotics; rates of death and respiratory failure; 60‐day hospital readmission rate; highest daily temperature; highest daily respiratory rate; and adverse events
Notes	The study was funded by a consortium of foundations.
*Risk of bias*
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	A computer‐generated list employing block sizes of 3 or 6 was used.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"Sealed envelopes" were used.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	The participants and personnel were blinded.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	The outcome assessors were blinded.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	19 participants (4.7%) were excluded after randomisation due to diagnosis change or for other reasons. ITT analysis was performed. However, the impact of the missing data on the results was unclear.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes were reported according to the protocol.
Other bias	Unclear risk	Insufficient information

Open in a new tab

Shi 2017.

*Study characteristics*
Methods	Randomised controlled trial
Participants	Intensive care unit; relevant details of health status of participants 143 treatment, 143 control Age (mean ± SD): treatment group: 59.0 ± 4.9 years; control group: 58.2 ± 5.2 years Male/female: 133/153 The trial was conducted in China.
Interventions	The physiotherapy was high‐frequency chest wall oscillation. Participants in both groups received sensitive antibiotics for anti‐infection, aetiological treatment, and calefacient and humidifying treatment. The control group received fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage. The treatment group received fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage combined with high‐frequency chest wall oscillation.
Outcomes	Primary outcome: mortality Secondary outcomes: duration of mechanical ventilation and length of hospital stay
Notes	This manuscript was published in Chinese. Medical and Health Scientific Research Planning Project of Hunan Province (B2015‐87)
*Risk of bias*
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	A random numbers table was used to generate the random sequence.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Allocation concealment was not performed.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	No blinding
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	No blinding
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	All participants completed the study, and there was no loss to follow‐up, no trial group changes, and no treatment withdrawals.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information
Other bias	Unclear risk	Insufficient information

Open in a new tab

Tydeman 1989.

*Study characteristics*
Methods	Randomised, parallel‐group trial
Participants	Inpatient setting; relevant details of health status of participants 12 treatment, 20 control Age (mean ± SD): control: 36.80 ± 16.91 years, treatment: 42.08 ± 15.59 years Male/female: control 10/10, treatment 9/3 The trial was conducted in the United Kingdom.
Interventions	The physiotherapy was active cycle of breathing techniques, which consisted of breathing control using the diaphragm; localised expansion exercises; postural drainage; thoracic expansion exercises with vibrations on expiration; and percussion. The first 2 methods were continued to discharge, and the other methods were used when participants became productive of sputum. The dose of the therapy was dependent on participant tolerance and sputum production.
Outcomes	Primary outcomes: death; cure rate Secondary outcomes: duration of hospital stay (days); rate of clearing of X‐ray film; duration of all antibiotic therapy; duration of production of sputum; inpatient sputum weight
Notes	This study was under the funding of Norwich Health Authority and the East Anglian Regional Health Authority Research Committee.
*Risk of bias*
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Randomisation method was not described.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	No blinding
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	No blinding
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	4 (11%) participants did not complete the study. Of these, 1 died, 2 were re‐diagnosed as having another disease, and 1 could not attend sufficient assessments. ITT analysis was not performed.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information
Other bias	Unclear risk	Insufficient information

Open in a new tab

CRP: C‐reactive protein VC: vital capacity FEV1: forced expiratory volume in the first second ITT: intention‐to‐treat PEF: peak expiratory flow OMT: osteopathic manipulative treatment SD: standard deviation

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Study	Reason for exclusion
Ahmed 2021	The interventions did not meet our inclusion criteria.
Barkov 1987	Physical agent; no control
Burioka 1998	Study participants had diffuse panbronchiolitis.
Cao 2020	The interventions did not meet our inclusion criteria.
Cheng 2004	This study was not an RCT or a quasi‐RCT. It covered mechanical ventilation for people with acute respiratory failure caused by pneumonia.
Choi 2005	This study evaluated mechanical ventilation for people with pneumonia.
Confalonieri 1998a	This study addressed respiratory failure caused by pneumonia.
Confalonieri 1998b	This study addressed respiratory failure caused by pneumonia.
Dangour 2011	Prevention study
Facto 1947	Review
Fu 2005	In addition to pneumonia, participants in this study also had asthma, chronic bronchitis, or bronchiectasis. Not an RCT or a quasi‐RCT
Holody 1981	In addition to pneumonia, participants in this study had atelectasis. Not an RCT or a quasi‐RCT.
Jolliet 2001	Not an RCT or a quasi‐RCT
Jose 2016	This study compared a "physical training program" with "standard respiratory physiotherapy"; these interventions did not meet our inclusion criteria.
Kuznetsov 1976	Not an RCT or a quasi‐RCT
Kuznetsov 1980a	Not an RCT or a quasi‐RCT
Kuznetsov 1980b	Not an RCT or a quasi‐RCT
Li 2005	Some participants with pneumonia also had congestive heart failure or diabetes mellitus. Not an RCT or a quasi‐RCT
Lopez‐Lopez 2019	The intervention was neuromuscular electrical stimulation of the lower limbs combined with exercise instead of chest physiotherapy.
Martín‐Salvador 2016	Study participants had pneumonia or COPD. Subgroup analysis according to pneumonia could not be performed.
Mo 2004	Some participants with pneumonia also had COPD or asthma. A before‐and‐after study in the same participants
Patman 2009	Some participants in the study were less than 18 years old, and no subgroup analysis for adults was provided in the study.
Schultz 2006	Study participants also had asthma, lung cancer, COPD, or pulmonary embolism.
Sedov 1975	Not an RCT or a quasi‐RCT
Valenza 2016	Meeting abstract
Vorob'ev 1984	Not an RCT or a quasi‐RCT
Wan 2004	Study participants had lower respiratory tract infections, not just pneumonia. Not an RCT or a quasi‐RCT
Wang 1997	Study participants had chronic bronchitis or acute bronchitis, not just pneumonia. Not an RCT or a quasi‐RCT
Wang 2020	The intervention was "critical care‐sub‐critical care‐rehabilitation integrated management model", which was not clearly defined. The model did not specify the rehabilitation techniques to be used.
Wu 2005a	Study participants had a pulmonary infection, not just pneumonia. Not an RCT or a quasi‐RCT
Wu 2005b	Study participants had a pulmonary infection, not just pneumonia. Not an RCT or a quasi‐RCT
Wu 2005c	Study participants had pneumonia caused by chronic bronchitis. Not an RCT or a quasi‐RCT
Xia 2005	Study participants had a pulmonary infection, not just pneumonia. Not an RCT or a quasi‐RCT
Xu 2004	Study participants had lower respiratory tract infections, not just pneumonia. Not an RCT or a quasi‐RCT
Xu 2021	The intervention was "ICU nursing risk management combined with the cluster nursing model" instead of chest physiotherapy.
Zhang 2004	Study participants had pneumonia caused by COPD. Not an RCT or a quasi‐RCT
Zhao 2004	Study participants had acute lung abscesses. Not an RCT or a quasi‐RCT

Open in a new tab

COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ICU: intensive care unit RCT: randomised controlled trial

Characteristics of ongoing studies [ordered by study ID]

NCT05007457.

Study name	The effectiveness of respiratory tele‐rehabilitation after COVID‐19 pneumonia related: a randomized controlled trial
Methods	Single‐blinded randomised controlled trial
Participants	100 patients with COVID‐19 pneumonia "discharged from the various medical departments and taken over by physiotherapists after physiatric evaluation"
Interventions	Tele‐rehabilitation versus standard treatment
Outcomes	Primary outcome: 6‐minute walking test Secondary outcomes: improvement of daily living activities; improvement of thoracic expansion and lung volumes; improvement of muscle strength and endurance; improvement of quality of life; improvement of dyspnoea in the execution of life activities; and improvement of the functionality of the lower limbs
Starting date	16 August 2021
Contact information	Angela Peghetti, Nurse Tel: 3314028226  Email: angela.peghetti@aosp.bo.it
Notes

Open in a new tab

Differences between protocol and review

In this update we assessed 11 new secondary outcomes (duration of antibiotic therapy, duration of sputum production, duration of intensive care unit stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, time to clinical stability, rate of in‐hospital respiratory failure, rate of 60‐day hospital readmission, duration of leukocytosis, change in leukocyte count, mean leukocyte count, and inpatient sputum weight), which were not included in the protocol.
In the protocol we planned to search CENTRAL via the Cochrane Library (www.cochranelibrary.com); however, we searched CENTRAL via OvidSP in this update.
In this update we produced summary of findings tables for the primary outcomes/comparisons, which were not a requirement when the protocol and the previous versions of this review were published.
In this update we produced a study flow diagram figure, which was not a requirement when the protocol and the previous versions of this review were published.
The protocol did not clarify whether intubated patients would be included or not. In this update, we clearly stated that we would include intubated and non‐intubated participants.
In the risk of bias assessment in the protocol, the two blinding domains (i.e. blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) and blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)) had been combined into one. In this update, we reassessed the two blinding domains separately.
In the protocol, subgroup analyses were planned for age category, type of chest physiotherapy, type of pneumonia, and severity of the disease. We reported separate results for different types of chest physiotherapy in this update. We also performed subgroup analyses according to clinical settings (inpatient or outpatient) and different time durations (e.g. mean leukocyte count in Day 3 from admission, or in Day 5 from admission).
The protocol stated that "we used a fixed‐effect model unless significant heterogeneity was noted; in which case we used a random‐effects model", which was in disagreement with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. In this update, we used a fixed‐effect model for single‐study analyses, and a random‐effects model for multiple‐study meta‐analyses.

Contributions of authors

All authors contributed to this review.

Hongbo Fu (HBF) and Jiaojiao Jiang (JJJ) searched the databases. Xiaomei Chen (XMC) and JJJ performed title and abstract screening, extracted data, and prepared the tables. Renjie Wang (RJW) and Jing Lu (JL) assessed the full texts of the potentially relevant publications for inclusion in the review. XMC and JL assessed the certainty of the evidence and drafted the full text. Ming Yang (MY) and JJJ edited the review. MY also acted as an arbitrator. MY, JJJ, and XMC entered data into Review Manager 5. JL was the consultant for data analysis. MY is the guarantor of the update.

Sources of support

Internal sources

No sources of support provided

External sources

No sources of support provided

Declarations of interest

Xiaomei Chen: declares that they have no conflict of interest. Jiaojiao Jiang: declares that they have no conflict of interest. Renjie Wang: declares that they have no conflict of interest. Hongbo Fu: declares that they have no conflict of interest. Jing Lu: declares that they have no conflict of interest. Ming Yang: declares that they have no conflict of interest.

New search for studies and content updated (no change to conclusions)

References

References to studies included in this review

Bjorkqvist 1997 {published data only}

Bjorkqvist M, Wiberg B, Bodin L, Bárány M, Holmberg H. Bottle-blowing in hospital-treated patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases 1997;29(1):77-82. [DOI: 10.3109/00365549709008669] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Britton 1985 {published data only}

Britton S, Beijstedt M, Wedin L. Respiratory gymnastics do not help in lung inflammation [Andningsgymnastik hjalper inte vid lunginflammation]. Lakartidningen 1983;80(47):4553-6. [PMID: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Britton S, Bejstedt M, Vedin L. Chest physiotherapy in primary pneumonia. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.) 1985;290(6483):1703-4. [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.290.6483.1703] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Britton S. Respiratory physiotherapy does not work in cases of primary pneumonia. Sjukgymnasten 1983;13:7-9. [Google Scholar]

Graham 1978 {published data only}

Graham WG, Bradley DA. Efficacy of chest physiotherapy and intermittent positive-pressure breathing in the resolution of pneumonia. New England Journal of Medicine 1978;299(12):624-7. [DOI: 10.1056/NEJM197809212991203] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Noll 1999 {published data only}

Noll DR, Shores J, Bryman PN, Masterson EV. Adjunctive osteopathic manipulative treatment in the elderly hospitalized with pneumonia: a pilot study. Journal of the American Osteopathic Association 1999;99(3):143-6. [DOI: 10.7556/jaoa.1999.99.3.143] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Noll 2000 {published data only}

Noll DR, Shores JH, Gamber RG, Herron KM, Swift J Jr. Benefits of osteopathic manipulative treatment for hospitalized elderly patients with pneumonia. Journal of the American Osteopathic Association 2000;100(12):776-82. [DOI: 10.7556/jaoa.2000.100.12.776] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Noll 2010 {published data only}

Noll DR, Degenhardt BF, Fossum C, Hensel K. Clinical and research protocol for osteopathic manipulative treatment of elderly patients with pneumonia. Journal of the American Osteopathic Association 2008;108:508-16. [DOI: 10.7556/jaoa.2008.108.9.508] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Noll DR, Degenhardt BF, Johnson JC. Multicenter osteopathic pneumonia study in the elderly: subgroup analysis on hospital length of stay, ventilator-dependent respiratory failure rate, and in-hospital mortality rate. Journal of the American Osteopathic Association 2016;116(9):574-87. [DOI: 10.7556/jaoa.2016.117] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Noll DR, Degenhardt BF, Morley TF, Blais FX, Hortos KA, Hensel K, et al. Efficacy of osteopathic manipulation as an adjunctive treatment for hospitalized patients with pneumonia: a randomized controlled trial. Osteopathic Medicine & Primary Care 2010;19(4):2. [DOI: 10.1186/1750-4732-4-2] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Shi 2017 {published data only}

Shi Z, Qin Y, Zhu Y, Pan X, Zhou X, Tan Y, et al. Effect of bronchoalveolar lavage with fiberoptic bronchoscopy combined with vibration sputum drainage on mechanically ventilated patients with severe pneumonia: a prospective randomized controlled trial in 286 patients. Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue 2017;29(1):66-70. [DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-4352.2017.01.014] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Tydeman 1989 {published data only}

Tydeman D. An investigation into the effectiveness of physiotherapy in the treatment of patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice 1989;5(2):75-81. [DOI: 10.3109/09593988909044416] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

References to studies excluded from this review

Ahmed 2021 {published data only}

Ahmed AT, Abou Galalah AA, Mahgoub AA, Mahram GS. Comparative study between noninvasive ventilation with continuous positive airway pressure mask versus stacked breathing on chest expansion and pulmonary function in patients with pneumonia. Anaesthesia, Pain and Intensive Care 2021;25(2):176-84. [DOI: 10.35975/APIC.V25I2.1470] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Barkov 1987 {published data only}

Barkov VA, Komiachilova AS, Smirnova GI, Namestnikov VV, Rogozina TV. Treatment of abscessing pneumonia by using combination physiotherapy [Lechenie abstsediruiushchei pnevmonii s primeneniem fizioterapevticheskogo kompleksa]. Voprosy Kurortologii, Fizioterapii i Lechebnoi Fizicheskoi Kultury 1987;March-April(2):13-6. [PMID: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Burioka 1998 {published data only}

Burioka N, Sugimoto Y, Suyama H, Hori S, Chikumi S, Sasaki T. Clinical efficacy of the FLUTTER device for airway mucus clearance in patients with diffuse panbronchiolitis. Respirology 1998;3:183-6. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1843.1998.tb00118.x] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cao 2020 {published data only}

Cao J, Li M, Li J, Xu J, Shi Z, Ti J, et al. Effect of fiberoptic bronchoscope combined with ambroxol alveolar lavage on the treatment of pulmonary atelectasis in severe pneumonia and its influences on systemic inflammatory response and respiratory mechanics. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine 2020;13(8):5901-7. [Google Scholar]

Cheng 2004 {published data only}

Cheng D, Xu D. Sequential non-invasive following short-term invasive mechanical ventilation in elderly patients of severe pneumonia with acute respiratory failure. Clinical Medical Journal of China 2004;11(6):977-8. [Google Scholar]

Choi 2005 {published data only}

Choi JS, Jones AY. Effects of manual hyperinflation and suctioning on respiratory mechanics in mechanically-ventilated patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy 2005;51(1):25-30. [DOI: 10.1016/S0004-9514(05)70050-7] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Confalonieri 1998a {published data only}

Confalonieri M, Potena A, Carbone G. Randomised trial of non invasive positive pressure ventilation in severe community acquired pneumonia. European Respiratory Journal 1998;Suppl 28:128. [Google Scholar]

Confalonieri 1998b {published data only}

Confalonieri M, Potena A, Gandola L. Randomised controlled study of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in severe community acquired pneumonia. Preliminary results. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 1998;157(Suppl 3):A224. [Google Scholar]

Dangour 2011 {published data only}

Dangour AD, Albala C, Allen E, Grundy E, Walker DG, Aedo C, et al. Effect of a nutrition supplement and physical activity program on pneumonia and walking capacity in Chilean older people: a factorial cluster randomized trial. PLOS Medicine 2011;8(4):e1001023. [DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001023] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Facto 1947 {published data only}

Facto LL. The osteopathic treatment of lobar pneumonia. Journal of the American Osteopathic Association 1947;46:385-92. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Fu 2005 {published data only}

Fu R, Dong H, He Y. Vibratory sputum-ejection apparatus for respiratory diseases in elderly. China Medical Equipment 2005;2(6):35-6. [Google Scholar]

Holody 1981 {published data only}

Holody B, Goldberg HS. The effect of mechanical vibration physiotherapy on arterial oxygenation in acutely ill patients with atelectasis or pneumonia. American Review of Respiratory Disease 1981;124(4):372-5. [DOI: 10.1164/ARRD.1981.124.4.372] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Jolliet 2001 {published data only}

Jolliet P, Abajo B, Pasquina P, Chevrolet JC. Non-invasive pressure support ventilation in severe community-acquired pneumonia. Intensive Care Medicine 2001;27(5):812-21. [DOI: 10.1007/s001340100869] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Jose 2016 {published data only}

Jose A, Dal Corso S. Inpatient rehabilitation improves functional capacity, peripheral muscle strength and quality of life in patients with community-acquired pneumonia: a randomised trial. Journal of Physiotherapy 2016;62(2):96-102. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jphys.2016.02.014] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Kuznetsov 1976 {published data only}

Kuznetsov OF. Effectiveness of massage in complex treatment of chronic pneumonia [Effektivnost' massazha v kompleksnom lechenii bol'nykh khronicheskoi pnevmoniei]. Voprosy Kurortologii, Fizioterapii i Lechebnoi Fizicheskoi Kultury 1976;5:29-32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Kuznetsov 1980a {published data only}

Kuznetsov OF, Lagutina TS. New massage method in the overall treatment of chronic pneumonia [Novaia metodika massazha v kompleksnom lechenii bol'nykh khronicheskoi pnevmoniei]. Voprosy Kurortologii, Fizioterapii i Lechebnoi Fizicheskoi Kultury 1980;3:13-7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Kuznetsov 1980b {published data only}

Kuznetsov OF, Tsar'kova LN, Pokrovskaia EL, Iakubson IM. Effect of massage on the acid-base balance in chronic pneumonia [Vliianie massazha na kislotno-shchelochnoi balans u bol'nykh khronicheskoi pnevmoniei]. Voprosy Kurortologii, Fizioterapii i Lechebnoi Fizicheskoi Kultury 1980;5:15-20. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Li 2005 {published data only}

Li Z. The application research of NIPPV on serious pneumonia sufferers. Guangzhou Medical Journal 2005;36(5):56-7. [Google Scholar]

Lopez‐Lopez 2019 {published data only}

Lopez-Lopez L, Torres-Sanchez I, Rodriguez-Torres J, Cabrera-Martos I, Ortiz-Rubio A, Valenza MC. Does adding an integrated physical therapy and neuromuscular electrical stimulation therapy to standard rehabilitation improve functional outcome in elderly patients with pneumonia? A randomised controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation 2019;33(11):1757-66. [DOI: 10.1177/0269215519859930] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Martín‐Salvador 2016 {published data only}

Martín-Salvador A, Colodro-Amores G, Torres-Sánchez I, Moreno-Ramírez MP, Cabrera-Martos I, Valenza MC. Physical therapy intervention during hospitalization in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and pneumonia: a randomized clinical trial. Medicina Clinica 2016;146(7):301-4. [DOI: 10.1016/j.medcli.2015.11.009] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Mo 2004 {published data only}

Mo K, Wang Z, Ning Z. Observation of efficacy in tracheobronchial clearance using G5 vibratory sputum-ejection apparatus in patients with lower respiratory tract infection. Anthology of Medicine 2004;23(6):764. [Google Scholar]

Patman 2009 {published data only}

Patman S, Jenkins S, Stiller K. Physiotherapy does not prevent, or hasten recovery from, ventilator-associated pneumonia in patients with acquired brain injury. Intensive Care Medicine 2009;35(2):258-65. [DOI: 10.1007/s00134-008-1278-2] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Schultz 2006 {published data only}

Schultz K, Bergmann KC, Kenn K, Petro W, Heitmann RH, Fischer R, et al. Effectiveness of inpatient pulmonary rehabilitation (AHB). Results of a multicenter prospective observation study [Effektivitat der pneumologischen Anschluss-Rehabilitation (AHB). Ergebnisse einer multizentrischen prospektiven Beobachtungsstudie]. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift 2006;131(33):1793-8. [DOI: 10.1055/s-2006-949155] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Sedov 1975 {published data only}

Sedov KR, Smol'kova OV. Value of therapeutic physical culture in the complex treatment of patients with chronic pneumonia [Znachenie lechebnoi fizkul'tury v kompleksnom lechenii bol'nykh khronicheskoi pnevmoniei]. Sovetskaia Meditsina 1975;1:65-70. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Valenza 2016 {published data only}

Valenza MC, Torres-Sanchez I, Del Corral Núñez-Flores T, De Aranda JA, Rios-Sanchez A, Torres JR. Effectiveness of a physical therapy intervention in patients hospitalized due to community acquired pneumonia. European Respiratory Journal 2016;48(Suppl 60):PA4424. [DOI: 10.1183/13993003.congress-2016.PA4424] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Vorob'ev 1984 {published data only}

Vorob'ev LP, Busarova GA, Merzlikin LA, Shestakov VA. Effect of physiotherapy on the outcome of acute pneumonia [Vliianie fizioterapii na iskhody ostroi pnevmonii]. Voprosy Kurortologii, Fizioterapii i Lechebnoi Fizicheskoi Kultury 1984;2:13-6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Wan 2004 {published data only}

Wan Y. Ultrasonic nebulization and postural drainage for lower respiratory tract infection. Modern Medicine & Health 2004;20(7):537-8. [Google Scholar]

Wang 1997 {published data only}

Wang Y, Hua G, Li Q, Li D. Chirismus rehabilitation for lung infection. Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 1997;12(2):85-8. [Google Scholar]

Wang 2020 {published data only}

Wang XL, Ma LJ, Hu XG, Wang K, Cheng JJ. Application of the respiratory "critical care-sub-critical care-rehabilitation integrated management model" in severe stroke associated pneumonia. BMC Pulmonary Medicine 2020;20(1):61. [DOI: 10.1186/s12890-020-1100-7] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Wu 2005a {published data only}

Wu L, Yang J. Observation of efficacy in tracheobronchial clearance using vibratory sputum-ejection apparatus in the aged with lower respiratory tract infection. Heilongjiang Nursing Journal 2005;11(6):459-60. [DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-2907.2005.06.022] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Wu 2005b {published data only}

Wu H. Chest physiotherapy for pulmonary infection. Guangxi Medical Journal 2005;27(10):1682-3. [Google Scholar]

Wu 2005c {published data only}

Wu Z, Zeng L, Gao S. Evaluation of different sputum excretion methods in nursing of old patients with lung infection. Heilongjiang Nursing Journal 2005;11(3):167-8. [Google Scholar]

Xia 2005 {published data only}

Xia X, Wang Y, Li Y, Tian J. Application of G5 vibratory sputum-ejection apparatus in patients with pulmonary infection. Tianjing Nursing 2005;13(5):296-7. [Google Scholar]

Xu 2004 {published data only}

Xu L, Wang A, Lai G. Vibratory sputum-ejection apparatus for pulmonary infection. Journal of Fuzhou General Hospital 2004;11(49):11. [Google Scholar]

Xu 2021 {published data only}

Xu Z, Chen J, Xu R. A randomised controlled study: efficacy of ICU nursing risk management combined with the cluster nursing model and its effect on quality of life and inflammatory factor levels of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and ventilator-associated pneumonia. Annals of Palliative Medicine 2021;10(7):7587-95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Zhang 2004 {published data only}

Zhang A. Application of musculus diaphragm pacemaker expectoration in lung infection. Journal of Medical Forum 2004;25(2):13-5. [Google Scholar]

Zhao 2004 {published data only}

Zhao B. Observation of efficacy of Chinese medicine nebulization and postural drainage for acute lung abscess. Practical Clinical Journal of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine 2004;4(6):18-9. [Google Scholar]

References to ongoing studies

NCT05007457 {published data only}

NCT05007457. The effectiveness of respiratory tele-rehabilitation after COVID-19 pneumonia related: a randomized controlled trial. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05007457 (first received 16 August 2021).

Additional references

Britton 1983

Britton S. Respiratory physiotherapy does not work in cases of primary pneumonia. Sjukgymnasten 1983;13:7-9. [Google Scholar]

Campbell 1975

Campbell AH, O'Connell JM, Wilson F. The effect of chest physiotherapy upon the FEV1 in chronic bronchitis. Medical Journal of Australia 1975;1(2):33-5. [DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.1975.tb111210.x] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cao 2018

Cao B, Huang Y, She D-Y, Cheng Q-J, Fan H, Tian X-L, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in adults: 2016 clinical practice guidelines by the Chinese Thoracic Society, Chinese Medical Association. Clinical Respiratory Journal 2018;12(4):1320-60. [DOI: 10.1111/crj.12674] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Chalumeau 2002

Chalumeau M, Foix-L'Helias L, Scheinmann P, Zuani P, Gendrel D, Ducou-le-Pointe H. Rib fractures after chest physiotherapy for bronchiolitis or pneumonia in infants. Pediatric Radiology 2002;32(9):644-7. [DOI: 10.1007/s00247-002-0755-y] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Chaves 2019

Chaves GS, Freitas DA, Santino TA, Nogueira PA, Fregonezi GA, Mendonça KM. Chest physiotherapy for pneumonia in children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 1. Art. No: CD010277. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010277.pub3] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Chen 2018

Chen L, Zhou F, Li H, Xing X, Han X, Wang Y, et al. Disease characteristics and management of hospitalised adolescents and adults with community-acquired pneumonia in China: a retrospective multicentre survey. BMJ Open 2018;8(2):e018709. [DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018709] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Connors 1980

Connors AF Jr, Hammon WE, Martin RJ, Rogers RM. Chest physical therapy. The immediate effect on oxygenation in acutely ill patients. Chest 1980;78(4):559-64. [DOI: 10.1378/chest.78.4.559] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Ferreira‐Coimbra 2020

Ferreira-Coimbra J, Sarda C, Rello J. Burden of community-acquired pneumonia and unmet clinical needs. Advances in Therapy 2020;37(4):1302-18. [DOI: 10.1007/s12325-020-01248-7] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

George 1995

George RB, Light RW, Matthay MA, Matthay RA. Chest Medicine: Essentials of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1995. [Google Scholar]

GRADEpro GDT [Computer program]

GRADEpro GDT. Version accessed 11 November 2021. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime). Available at gradepro.org.

Guessous 2008

Guessous I, Cornuz J, Stoianov R, Burnand B, Fitting JW, Yersin B, et al. Efficacy of clinical guideline implementation to improve the appropriateness of chest physiotherapy prescription among inpatients with community-acquired pneumonia. Respiratory Medicine 2008;102(9):1257-63. [DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2008.04.008] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Guyatt 2008

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Schünemann HJ. What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ 2008;336(7651):995. [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39490.551019.BE] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Higgins 2021

Higgins JP, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Sterne JA. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. In: Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane, 2021. Available from training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v6.2.

Horiuchi 1997

Horiuchi K, Jordan D, Cohen D, Kemper MC, Weissman C. Insights into the increased oxygen demand during chest physiotherapy. Critical Care Medicine 1997;25(8):1347-51. [DOI: 10.1097/00003246-199708000-00022] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

ICH 1997

International Conference on Harmonisation Expert Working Group. International conference on harmonisation of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use. In: ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. CFR & ICH Guidelines. Vol. 1. Barnett International/PAREXEL, 1997:1-59. [Google Scholar]

Jonas 2018

Jonas C. Musculoskeletal therapies: osteopathic manipulative treatment. FP Essentials 2018;470:11-5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Kalil 2016

Kalil AC, Metersky ML, Klompas M, Muscedere J, Sweeney DA, Palmer LB, et al. Executive summary: management of adults with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia: 2016 Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2016;63(5):575-82. [DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciw504] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Lefebvre 2021

Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Briscoe S, Littlewood A, Marshall C, Metzendorf M-I, et al. Chapter 4: Searching for and selecting studies. In: Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane, 2021. Available from training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v6.2.

Lewis 2012

Lewis LK, Williams MT, Olds TS. The active cycle of breathing technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Respiratory Medicine 2012;106(2):155-72. [DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2011.10.014] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Lim 2009

Lim WS, Baudouin SV, George RC, Hill AT, Jamieson C, Le Jeune I, et al. BTS guidelines for the management of community acquired pneumonia in adults: update 2009. Thorax 2009;64(Suppl 3):iii1-55. [DOI: 10.1136/thx.2009.121434] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Marques 2020

Marques A, Pinho C, De Francesco S, Martins P, Neves J, Oliveira A. A randomized controlled trial of respiratory physiotherapy in lower respiratory tract infections. Respiratory Medicine 2020;162:105861. [DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2019.105861] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

McIlwaine 2015

McIlwaine M, Button B, Dwan K. Positive expiratory pressure physiotherapy for airway clearance in people with cystic fibrosis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 6. Art. No: CD003147. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003147.pub4] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Metlay 2019

Metlay JP, Waterer GW, Long AC, Anzueto A, Brozek J, Crothers K, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of adults with community-acquired pneumonia. An official clinical practice guideline of the American Thoracic Society and Infectious Diseases Society of America. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2019;200(7):e45-67. [DOI: 10.1164/rccm.201908-1581ST] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Musher 2014

Musher DM, Thorner AR. Community-acquired pneumonia. New England Journal of Medicine 2014;371(17):1619-28. [DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra1312885] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Nicolini 2013

Nicolini A, Cardini F, Landucci N, Lanata S, Ferrari-Bravo M, Barlascini C. Effectiveness of treatment with high-frequency chest wall oscillation in patients with bronchiectasis. BMC Pulmonary Medicine 2013;13(1):21. [DOI: 10.1186/1471-2466-13-21] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Ntoumenopoulos 2002

Ntoumenopoulos G, Presneill JJ, McElholum M, Cade JF. Chest physiotherapy for the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Intensive Care Medicine 2002;28(7):850-6. [DOI: 10.1007/s00134-002-1342-2] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Poelaert 1991

Poelaert J, Lannoy B, Vogelaers D, Everaert J, Decruyenaere J, Capiau P, et al. Influence of chest physiotherapy on arterial oxygen saturation. Acta Anaesthesiologica Belgica 1991;42(3):165-70. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Prina 2015

Prina E, Ranzani OT, Torres A. Community-acquired pneumonia. Lancet 2015;386(9998):1097-108. [DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60733] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Review Manager 2020 [Computer program]

Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5) . Version 5.4. Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020.

Roqué 2016

Roqué i Figuls M, Giné-Garriga M, Granados Rugeles C, Perrotta C, Vilaró J. Chest physiotherapy for acute bronchiolitis in paediatric patients between 0 and 24 months old. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 2. Art. No: CD004873. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004873.pub5] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Takayanagi 2006

Takayanagi N, Hara K, Tokunaga D, Takaku Y, Minagawa S, Tsuchiya Y, et al. Etiology and outcome of community-acquired pneumonia in relation to age and severity in hospitalized adult patients. Nihon Kokyuki Gakkai Zasshi 2006;44(12):906-15. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Tong 2018

Tong S, Amand C, Kieffer A, Kyaw MH. Trends in healthcare utilization and costs associated with pneumonia in the United States during 2008–2014. BMC Health Services Research 2018;18(1):715. [DOI: 10.1186/s12913-018-3529-4] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Wallis 1999

Wallis C, Prasad A. Who needs chest physiotherapy? Moving from anecdote to evidence. Archives of Disease in Childhood 1999;80(4):393-7. [DOI: 10.1136/adc.80.4.393] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Warnock 2015

Warnock L, Gates A. Chest physiotherapy compared to no chest physiotherapy for cystic fibrosis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 12. Art. No: CD001401. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001401.pub3] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Weissman 1991

Weissman C, Kemper M. The oxygen uptake-oxygen delivery relationship during ICU interventions. Chest 1991;99:430-5. [DOI: 10.1378/chest.99.2.430] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Weissman 1993

Weissman C, Kemper M. Stressing the critically ill patients: the cardiopulmonary and metabolic response to an acute increase in oxygen consumption. Journal of Critical Care 1993;8(2):100-8. [DOI: 10.1016/0883-9441(93)90014-c] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Zhang 2018

Zhang ZX, Yong Y, Tan WC, Shen L, Ng HS, Fong KY. Prognostic factors for mortality due to pneumonia among adults from different age groups in Singapore and mortality predictions based on PSI and CURB-65. Singapore Medical Journal 2018;59(4):190-8. [DOI: 10.11622/smedj.2017079] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

References to other published versions of this review

Yang 2010

Yang M, Yan Y, Yin X, Wang BY, Wu T, Liu GJ, et al. Chest physiotherapy for pneumonia in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 2. Art. No: CD006338. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006338.pub2] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Yang 2013

Yang M, Yan Y, Yin X, Wang BY, Wu T, Liu GJ, et al. Chest physiotherapy for pneumonia in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 2. Art. No: CD006338. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006338.pub3] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0001] Bjorkqvist M, Wiberg B, Bodin L, Bárány M, Holmberg H. Bottle-blowing in hospital-treated patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases 1997;29(1):77-82. [DOI: 10.3109/00365549709008669] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0002] Britton S, Beijstedt M, Wedin L. Respiratory gymnastics do not help in lung inflammation [Andningsgymnastik hjalper inte vid lunginflammation]. Lakartidningen 1983;80(47):4553-6. [PMID: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0003] Britton S, Bejstedt M, Vedin L. Chest physiotherapy in primary pneumonia. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.) 1985;290(6483):1703-4. [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.290.6483.1703] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0004] Britton S. Respiratory physiotherapy does not work in cases of primary pneumonia. Sjukgymnasten 1983;13:7-9. [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0005] Graham WG, Bradley DA. Efficacy of chest physiotherapy and intermittent positive-pressure breathing in the resolution of pneumonia. New England Journal of Medicine 1978;299(12):624-7. [DOI: 10.1056/NEJM197809212991203] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0006] Noll DR, Shores J, Bryman PN, Masterson EV. Adjunctive osteopathic manipulative treatment in the elderly hospitalized with pneumonia: a pilot study. Journal of the American Osteopathic Association 1999;99(3):143-6. [DOI: 10.7556/jaoa.1999.99.3.143] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0007] Noll DR, Shores JH, Gamber RG, Herron KM, Swift J Jr. Benefits of osteopathic manipulative treatment for hospitalized elderly patients with pneumonia. Journal of the American Osteopathic Association 2000;100(12):776-82. [DOI: 10.7556/jaoa.2000.100.12.776] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0008] Noll DR, Degenhardt BF, Fossum C, Hensel K. Clinical and research protocol for osteopathic manipulative treatment of elderly patients with pneumonia. Journal of the American Osteopathic Association 2008;108:508-16. [DOI: 10.7556/jaoa.2008.108.9.508] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0009] Noll DR, Degenhardt BF, Johnson JC. Multicenter osteopathic pneumonia study in the elderly: subgroup analysis on hospital length of stay, ventilator-dependent respiratory failure rate, and in-hospital mortality rate. Journal of the American Osteopathic Association 2016;116(9):574-87. [DOI: 10.7556/jaoa.2016.117] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0010] Noll DR, Degenhardt BF, Morley TF, Blais FX, Hortos KA, Hensel K, et al. Efficacy of osteopathic manipulation as an adjunctive treatment for hospitalized patients with pneumonia: a randomized controlled trial. Osteopathic Medicine & Primary Care 2010;19(4):2. [DOI: 10.1186/1750-4732-4-2] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0011] Shi Z, Qin Y, Zhu Y, Pan X, Zhou X, Tan Y, et al. Effect of bronchoalveolar lavage with fiberoptic bronchoscopy combined with vibration sputum drainage on mechanically ventilated patients with severe pneumonia: a prospective randomized controlled trial in 286 patients. Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue 2017;29(1):66-70. [DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-4352.2017.01.014] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0012] Tydeman D. An investigation into the effectiveness of physiotherapy in the treatment of patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice 1989;5(2):75-81. [DOI: 10.3109/09593988909044416] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0013] Ahmed AT, Abou Galalah AA, Mahgoub AA, Mahram GS. Comparative study between noninvasive ventilation with continuous positive airway pressure mask versus stacked breathing on chest expansion and pulmonary function in patients with pneumonia. Anaesthesia, Pain and Intensive Care 2021;25(2):176-84. [DOI: 10.35975/APIC.V25I2.1470] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0014] Barkov VA, Komiachilova AS, Smirnova GI, Namestnikov VV, Rogozina TV. Treatment of abscessing pneumonia by using combination physiotherapy [Lechenie abstsediruiushchei pnevmonii s primeneniem fizioterapevticheskogo kompleksa]. Voprosy Kurortologii, Fizioterapii i Lechebnoi Fizicheskoi Kultury 1987;March-April(2):13-6. [PMID: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0015] Burioka N, Sugimoto Y, Suyama H, Hori S, Chikumi S, Sasaki T. Clinical efficacy of the FLUTTER device for airway mucus clearance in patients with diffuse panbronchiolitis. Respirology 1998;3:183-6. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1843.1998.tb00118.x] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0016] Cao J, Li M, Li J, Xu J, Shi Z, Ti J, et al. Effect of fiberoptic bronchoscope combined with ambroxol alveolar lavage on the treatment of pulmonary atelectasis in severe pneumonia and its influences on systemic inflammatory response and respiratory mechanics. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine 2020;13(8):5901-7. [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0017] Cheng D, Xu D. Sequential non-invasive following short-term invasive mechanical ventilation in elderly patients of severe pneumonia with acute respiratory failure. Clinical Medical Journal of China 2004;11(6):977-8. [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0018] Choi JS, Jones AY. Effects of manual hyperinflation and suctioning on respiratory mechanics in mechanically-ventilated patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy 2005;51(1):25-30. [DOI: 10.1016/S0004-9514(05)70050-7] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0019] Confalonieri M, Potena A, Carbone G. Randomised trial of non invasive positive pressure ventilation in severe community acquired pneumonia. European Respiratory Journal 1998;Suppl 28:128. [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0020] Confalonieri M, Potena A, Gandola L. Randomised controlled study of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in severe community acquired pneumonia. Preliminary results. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 1998;157(Suppl 3):A224. [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0021] Dangour AD, Albala C, Allen E, Grundy E, Walker DG, Aedo C, et al. Effect of a nutrition supplement and physical activity program on pneumonia and walking capacity in Chilean older people: a factorial cluster randomized trial. PLOS Medicine 2011;8(4):e1001023. [DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001023] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0022] Facto LL. The osteopathic treatment of lobar pneumonia. Journal of the American Osteopathic Association 1947;46:385-92. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0023] Fu R, Dong H, He Y. Vibratory sputum-ejection apparatus for respiratory diseases in elderly. China Medical Equipment 2005;2(6):35-6. [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0024] Holody B, Goldberg HS. The effect of mechanical vibration physiotherapy on arterial oxygenation in acutely ill patients with atelectasis or pneumonia. American Review of Respiratory Disease 1981;124(4):372-5. [DOI: 10.1164/ARRD.1981.124.4.372] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0025] Jolliet P, Abajo B, Pasquina P, Chevrolet JC. Non-invasive pressure support ventilation in severe community-acquired pneumonia. Intensive Care Medicine 2001;27(5):812-21. [DOI: 10.1007/s001340100869] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0026] Jose A, Dal Corso S. Inpatient rehabilitation improves functional capacity, peripheral muscle strength and quality of life in patients with community-acquired pneumonia: a randomised trial. Journal of Physiotherapy 2016;62(2):96-102. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jphys.2016.02.014] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0027] Kuznetsov OF. Effectiveness of massage in complex treatment of chronic pneumonia [Effektivnost' massazha v kompleksnom lechenii bol'nykh khronicheskoi pnevmoniei]. Voprosy Kurortologii, Fizioterapii i Lechebnoi Fizicheskoi Kultury 1976;5:29-32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0028] Kuznetsov OF, Lagutina TS. New massage method in the overall treatment of chronic pneumonia [Novaia metodika massazha v kompleksnom lechenii bol'nykh khronicheskoi pnevmoniei]. Voprosy Kurortologii, Fizioterapii i Lechebnoi Fizicheskoi Kultury 1980;3:13-7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0029] Kuznetsov OF, Tsar'kova LN, Pokrovskaia EL, Iakubson IM. Effect of massage on the acid-base balance in chronic pneumonia [Vliianie massazha na kislotno-shchelochnoi balans u bol'nykh khronicheskoi pnevmoniei]. Voprosy Kurortologii, Fizioterapii i Lechebnoi Fizicheskoi Kultury 1980;5:15-20. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0030] Li Z. The application research of NIPPV on serious pneumonia sufferers. Guangzhou Medical Journal 2005;36(5):56-7. [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0031] Lopez-Lopez L, Torres-Sanchez I, Rodriguez-Torres J, Cabrera-Martos I, Ortiz-Rubio A, Valenza MC. Does adding an integrated physical therapy and neuromuscular electrical stimulation therapy to standard rehabilitation improve functional outcome in elderly patients with pneumonia? A randomised controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation 2019;33(11):1757-66. [DOI: 10.1177/0269215519859930] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0032] Martín-Salvador A, Colodro-Amores G, Torres-Sánchez I, Moreno-Ramírez MP, Cabrera-Martos I, Valenza MC. Physical therapy intervention during hospitalization in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and pneumonia: a randomized clinical trial. Medicina Clinica 2016;146(7):301-4. [DOI: 10.1016/j.medcli.2015.11.009] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0033] Mo K, Wang Z, Ning Z. Observation of efficacy in tracheobronchial clearance using G5 vibratory sputum-ejection apparatus in patients with lower respiratory tract infection. Anthology of Medicine 2004;23(6):764. [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0034] Patman S, Jenkins S, Stiller K. Physiotherapy does not prevent, or hasten recovery from, ventilator-associated pneumonia in patients with acquired brain injury. Intensive Care Medicine 2009;35(2):258-65. [DOI: 10.1007/s00134-008-1278-2] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0035] Schultz K, Bergmann KC, Kenn K, Petro W, Heitmann RH, Fischer R, et al. Effectiveness of inpatient pulmonary rehabilitation (AHB). Results of a multicenter prospective observation study [Effektivitat der pneumologischen Anschluss-Rehabilitation (AHB). Ergebnisse einer multizentrischen prospektiven Beobachtungsstudie]. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift 2006;131(33):1793-8. [DOI: 10.1055/s-2006-949155] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0036] Sedov KR, Smol'kova OV. Value of therapeutic physical culture in the complex treatment of patients with chronic pneumonia [Znachenie lechebnoi fizkul'tury v kompleksnom lechenii bol'nykh khronicheskoi pnevmoniei]. Sovetskaia Meditsina 1975;1:65-70. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0037] Valenza MC, Torres-Sanchez I, Del Corral Núñez-Flores T, De Aranda JA, Rios-Sanchez A, Torres JR. Effectiveness of a physical therapy intervention in patients hospitalized due to community acquired pneumonia. European Respiratory Journal 2016;48(Suppl 60):PA4424. [DOI: 10.1183/13993003.congress-2016.PA4424] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0038] Vorob'ev LP, Busarova GA, Merzlikin LA, Shestakov VA. Effect of physiotherapy on the outcome of acute pneumonia [Vliianie fizioterapii na iskhody ostroi pnevmonii]. Voprosy Kurortologii, Fizioterapii i Lechebnoi Fizicheskoi Kultury 1984;2:13-6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0039] Wan Y. Ultrasonic nebulization and postural drainage for lower respiratory tract infection. Modern Medicine & Health 2004;20(7):537-8. [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0040] Wang Y, Hua G, Li Q, Li D. Chirismus rehabilitation for lung infection. Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 1997;12(2):85-8. [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0041] Wang XL, Ma LJ, Hu XG, Wang K, Cheng JJ. Application of the respiratory "critical care-sub-critical care-rehabilitation integrated management model" in severe stroke associated pneumonia. BMC Pulmonary Medicine 2020;20(1):61. [DOI: 10.1186/s12890-020-1100-7] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0042] Wu L, Yang J. Observation of efficacy in tracheobronchial clearance using vibratory sputum-ejection apparatus in the aged with lower respiratory tract infection. Heilongjiang Nursing Journal 2005;11(6):459-60. [DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-2907.2005.06.022] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0043] Wu H. Chest physiotherapy for pulmonary infection. Guangxi Medical Journal 2005;27(10):1682-3. [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0044] Wu Z, Zeng L, Gao S. Evaluation of different sputum excretion methods in nursing of old patients with lung infection. Heilongjiang Nursing Journal 2005;11(3):167-8. [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0045] Xia X, Wang Y, Li Y, Tian J. Application of G5 vibratory sputum-ejection apparatus in patients with pulmonary infection. Tianjing Nursing 2005;13(5):296-7. [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0046] Xu L, Wang A, Lai G. Vibratory sputum-ejection apparatus for pulmonary infection. Journal of Fuzhou General Hospital 2004;11(49):11. [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0047] Xu Z, Chen J, Xu R. A randomised controlled study: efficacy of ICU nursing risk management combined with the cluster nursing model and its effect on quality of life and inflammatory factor levels of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and ventilator-associated pneumonia. Annals of Palliative Medicine 2021;10(7):7587-95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0048] Zhang A. Application of musculus diaphragm pacemaker expectoration in lung infection. Journal of Medical Forum 2004;25(2):13-5. [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0049] Zhao B. Observation of efficacy of Chinese medicine nebulization and postural drainage for acute lung abscess. Practical Clinical Journal of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine 2004;4(6):18-9. [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0050] NCT05007457. The effectiveness of respiratory tele-rehabilitation after COVID-19 pneumonia related: a randomized controlled trial. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05007457 (first received 16 August 2021).

[CD006338-bib-0051] Britton S. Respiratory physiotherapy does not work in cases of primary pneumonia. Sjukgymnasten 1983;13:7-9. [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0052] Campbell AH, O'Connell JM, Wilson F. The effect of chest physiotherapy upon the FEV1 in chronic bronchitis. Medical Journal of Australia 1975;1(2):33-5. [DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.1975.tb111210.x] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0053] Cao B, Huang Y, She D-Y, Cheng Q-J, Fan H, Tian X-L, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in adults: 2016 clinical practice guidelines by the Chinese Thoracic Society, Chinese Medical Association. Clinical Respiratory Journal 2018;12(4):1320-60. [DOI: 10.1111/crj.12674] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0054] Chalumeau M, Foix-L'Helias L, Scheinmann P, Zuani P, Gendrel D, Ducou-le-Pointe H. Rib fractures after chest physiotherapy for bronchiolitis or pneumonia in infants. Pediatric Radiology 2002;32(9):644-7. [DOI: 10.1007/s00247-002-0755-y] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0055] Chaves GS, Freitas DA, Santino TA, Nogueira PA, Fregonezi GA, Mendonça KM. Chest physiotherapy for pneumonia in children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 1. Art. No: CD010277. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010277.pub3] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0056] Chen L, Zhou F, Li H, Xing X, Han X, Wang Y, et al. Disease characteristics and management of hospitalised adolescents and adults with community-acquired pneumonia in China: a retrospective multicentre survey. BMJ Open 2018;8(2):e018709. [DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018709] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0057] Connors AF Jr, Hammon WE, Martin RJ, Rogers RM. Chest physical therapy. The immediate effect on oxygenation in acutely ill patients. Chest 1980;78(4):559-64. [DOI: 10.1378/chest.78.4.559] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0058] Ferreira-Coimbra J, Sarda C, Rello J. Burden of community-acquired pneumonia and unmet clinical needs. Advances in Therapy 2020;37(4):1302-18. [DOI: 10.1007/s12325-020-01248-7] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0059] George RB, Light RW, Matthay MA, Matthay RA. Chest Medicine: Essentials of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1995. [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0060] GRADEpro GDT. Version accessed 11 November 2021. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime). Available at gradepro.org.

[CD006338-bib-0061] Guessous I, Cornuz J, Stoianov R, Burnand B, Fitting JW, Yersin B, et al. Efficacy of clinical guideline implementation to improve the appropriateness of chest physiotherapy prescription among inpatients with community-acquired pneumonia. Respiratory Medicine 2008;102(9):1257-63. [DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2008.04.008] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0062] Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Schünemann HJ. What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ 2008;336(7651):995. [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39490.551019.BE] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0063] Higgins JP, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Sterne JA. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. In: Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane, 2021. Available from training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v6.2.

[CD006338-bib-0064] Horiuchi K, Jordan D, Cohen D, Kemper MC, Weissman C. Insights into the increased oxygen demand during chest physiotherapy. Critical Care Medicine 1997;25(8):1347-51. [DOI: 10.1097/00003246-199708000-00022] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0065] International Conference on Harmonisation Expert Working Group. International conference on harmonisation of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use. In: ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. CFR & ICH Guidelines. Vol. 1. Barnett International/PAREXEL, 1997:1-59. [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0066] Jonas C. Musculoskeletal therapies: osteopathic manipulative treatment. FP Essentials 2018;470:11-5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0067] Kalil AC, Metersky ML, Klompas M, Muscedere J, Sweeney DA, Palmer LB, et al. Executive summary: management of adults with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia: 2016 Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2016;63(5):575-82. [DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciw504] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0068] Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Briscoe S, Littlewood A, Marshall C, Metzendorf M-I, et al. Chapter 4: Searching for and selecting studies. In: Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane, 2021. Available from training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v6.2.

[CD006338-bib-0069] Lewis LK, Williams MT, Olds TS. The active cycle of breathing technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Respiratory Medicine 2012;106(2):155-72. [DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2011.10.014] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0070] Lim WS, Baudouin SV, George RC, Hill AT, Jamieson C, Le Jeune I, et al. BTS guidelines for the management of community acquired pneumonia in adults: update 2009. Thorax 2009;64(Suppl 3):iii1-55. [DOI: 10.1136/thx.2009.121434] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0071] Marques A, Pinho C, De Francesco S, Martins P, Neves J, Oliveira A. A randomized controlled trial of respiratory physiotherapy in lower respiratory tract infections. Respiratory Medicine 2020;162:105861. [DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2019.105861] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0072] McIlwaine M, Button B, Dwan K. Positive expiratory pressure physiotherapy for airway clearance in people with cystic fibrosis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 6. Art. No: CD003147. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003147.pub4] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0073] Metlay JP, Waterer GW, Long AC, Anzueto A, Brozek J, Crothers K, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of adults with community-acquired pneumonia. An official clinical practice guideline of the American Thoracic Society and Infectious Diseases Society of America. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2019;200(7):e45-67. [DOI: 10.1164/rccm.201908-1581ST] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0074] Musher DM, Thorner AR. Community-acquired pneumonia. New England Journal of Medicine 2014;371(17):1619-28. [DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra1312885] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0075] Nicolini A, Cardini F, Landucci N, Lanata S, Ferrari-Bravo M, Barlascini C. Effectiveness of treatment with high-frequency chest wall oscillation in patients with bronchiectasis. BMC Pulmonary Medicine 2013;13(1):21. [DOI: 10.1186/1471-2466-13-21] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0076] Ntoumenopoulos G, Presneill JJ, McElholum M, Cade JF. Chest physiotherapy for the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Intensive Care Medicine 2002;28(7):850-6. [DOI: 10.1007/s00134-002-1342-2] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0077] Poelaert J, Lannoy B, Vogelaers D, Everaert J, Decruyenaere J, Capiau P, et al. Influence of chest physiotherapy on arterial oxygen saturation. Acta Anaesthesiologica Belgica 1991;42(3):165-70. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0078] Prina E, Ranzani OT, Torres A. Community-acquired pneumonia. Lancet 2015;386(9998):1097-108. [DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60733] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0079] Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5) . Version 5.4. Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020.

[CD006338-bib-0080] Roqué i Figuls M, Giné-Garriga M, Granados Rugeles C, Perrotta C, Vilaró J. Chest physiotherapy for acute bronchiolitis in paediatric patients between 0 and 24 months old. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 2. Art. No: CD004873. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004873.pub5] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0081] Takayanagi N, Hara K, Tokunaga D, Takaku Y, Minagawa S, Tsuchiya Y, et al. Etiology and outcome of community-acquired pneumonia in relation to age and severity in hospitalized adult patients. Nihon Kokyuki Gakkai Zasshi 2006;44(12):906-15. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0082] Tong S, Amand C, Kieffer A, Kyaw MH. Trends in healthcare utilization and costs associated with pneumonia in the United States during 2008–2014. BMC Health Services Research 2018;18(1):715. [DOI: 10.1186/s12913-018-3529-4] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0083] Wallis C, Prasad A. Who needs chest physiotherapy? Moving from anecdote to evidence. Archives of Disease in Childhood 1999;80(4):393-7. [DOI: 10.1136/adc.80.4.393] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0084] Warnock L, Gates A. Chest physiotherapy compared to no chest physiotherapy for cystic fibrosis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 12. Art. No: CD001401. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001401.pub3] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0085] Weissman C, Kemper M. The oxygen uptake-oxygen delivery relationship during ICU interventions. Chest 1991;99:430-5. [DOI: 10.1378/chest.99.2.430] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0086] Weissman C, Kemper M. Stressing the critically ill patients: the cardiopulmonary and metabolic response to an acute increase in oxygen consumption. Journal of Critical Care 1993;8(2):100-8. [DOI: 10.1016/0883-9441(93)90014-c] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0087] Zhang ZX, Yong Y, Tan WC, Shen L, Ng HS, Fong KY. Prognostic factors for mortality due to pneumonia among adults from different age groups in Singapore and mortality predictions based on PSI and CURB-65. Singapore Medical Journal 2018;59(4):190-8. [DOI: 10.11622/smedj.2017079] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0088] Yang M, Yan Y, Yin X, Wang BY, Wu T, Liu GJ, et al. Chest physiotherapy for pneumonia in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 2. Art. No: CD006338. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006338.pub2] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CD006338-bib-0089] Yang M, Yan Y, Yin X, Wang BY, Wu T, Liu GJ, et al. Chest physiotherapy for pneumonia in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 2. Art. No: CD006338. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006338.pub3] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Chest physiotherapy for pneumonia in adults

Xiaomei Chen

Jiaojiao Jiang

Renjie Wang

Hongbo Fu

Jing Lu

Ming Yang

Abstract

Background

Objectives

Search methods

Selection criteria

Data collection and analysis

Main results

Authors' conclusions

Plain language summary

Summary of findings

Summary of findings 1. Conventional chest physiotherapy plus routine treatment compared to routine treatment alone for pneumonia.

Summary of findings 2. Active cycle of breathing techniques plus routine treatment compared to routine treatment alone for pneumonia.

Summary of findings 3. Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) plus routine treatment compared to placebo plus routine treatment for pneumonia.

Summary of findings 4. Positive expiratory pressure plus routine treatment compared to routine treatment alone for pneumonia.

Summary of findings 5. High‐frequency chest wall oscillation plus fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage compared to fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage alone for severe pneumonia and receiving mechanical ventilation.

Background

Description of the condition

Description of the intervention

How the intervention might work

Why it is important to do this review

Objectives

Methods

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Types of studies

Types of participants

Types of interventions

Types of outcome measures

Primary outcomes

Secondary outcomes

Adverse events

Search methods for identification of studies

Electronic searches

Searching other resources

Data collection and analysis

Selection of studies

Data extraction and management

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

Measures of treatment effect

Unit of analysis issues

Dealing with missing data

Assessment of heterogeneity

Assessment of reporting biases

Data synthesis

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

Sensitivity analysis

Summary of findings and assessment of the certainty of the evidence

Results

Description of studies

Results of the search

1.

Included studies

Participants

Interventions

Outcome measures

Excluded studies

Risk of bias in included studies

2.

3.

Allocation

Blinding

Incomplete outcome data

Selective reporting

Other potential sources of bias

Effects of interventions

1. Conventional chest physiotherapy plus routine treatment versus routine treatment alone

1.1 Primary outcomes

1.1.1 Mortality

1.1. Analysis.

1.1.2. Cure rate

1.2. Analysis.

1.2 Secondary outcomes

1.2.1 Duration of hospital stay