Airflow relieves chronic breathlessness in people with advanced disease: An exploratory systematic review and meta-analyses.
Dyspnoea
airflow (relevant term as the intervention subject heading)
review
self-management
Journal
Palliative medicine
ISSN: 1477-030X
Titre abrégé: Palliat Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8704926
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2019
06 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
9
3
2019
medline:
6
5
2020
entrez:
9
3
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Chronic breathlessness is a neglected symptom of advanced diseases. To examine the effect of airflow for chronic breathlessness relief. Exploratory systematic review and meta-analysis. Medline, CINAHL, AMED and Cochrane databases were searched (1985-2018) for observational studies or randomised controlled trials of airflow as intervention or comparator. Selection against predefined inclusion criteria, quality appraisal and data extraction was conducted by two independent reviewers with access to a third for unresolved differences. 'Before and after' breathlessness measures from airflow arms were analysed. Meta-analysis was carried out where possible. In all, 16 of 78 studies (n = 929) were included: 11 randomised controlled trials of oxygen versus medical air, 4 randomised controlled trials and 1 fan cohort study. Three meta-analyses were possible: (1) Fan at rest in three studies (n = 111) offered significant benefit for breathlessness intensity (0-100 mm visual analogue scale and 0-10 numerical rating scale), mean difference -11.17 (95% confidence intervals (CI) -16.60 to -5.74), p = 0.06 I Airflow appears to offer meaningful relief of chronic breathlessness and should be considered as an adjunct treatment in the management of breathlessness.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Chronic breathlessness is a neglected symptom of advanced diseases.
AIM
To examine the effect of airflow for chronic breathlessness relief.
DESIGN
Exploratory systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, CINAHL, AMED and Cochrane databases were searched (1985-2018) for observational studies or randomised controlled trials of airflow as intervention or comparator. Selection against predefined inclusion criteria, quality appraisal and data extraction was conducted by two independent reviewers with access to a third for unresolved differences. 'Before and after' breathlessness measures from airflow arms were analysed. Meta-analysis was carried out where possible.
RESULTS
In all, 16 of 78 studies (n = 929) were included: 11 randomised controlled trials of oxygen versus medical air, 4 randomised controlled trials and 1 fan cohort study. Three meta-analyses were possible: (1) Fan at rest in three studies (n = 111) offered significant benefit for breathlessness intensity (0-100 mm visual analogue scale and 0-10 numerical rating scale), mean difference -11.17 (95% confidence intervals (CI) -16.60 to -5.74), p = 0.06 I
CONCLUSION
Airflow appears to offer meaningful relief of chronic breathlessness and should be considered as an adjunct treatment in the management of breathlessness.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30848701
doi: 10.1177/0269216319835393
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
618-633Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn