OBJECTIVES: This study had two objectives: (1) to examine the effects of bronchopulmonary hygiene physical therapy on patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and bronchiectasis; (2) to determine any differences between manual and mechanical techniques for bronchopulmonary hygiene physical therapy. DESIGN: The study design was a systematic review of the literature that used an exhaustive search for trials and review methods prescribed by the Cochrane Collaboration. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials examined patient groups, interventions, and dependent variables. PATIENTS: Patients included those with chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (emphysema or chronic bronchitis) or bronchiectasis. INTERVENTIONS: Any of the following interventions or combinations thereof were included: manual interventions, such as postural drainage, chest percussion, vibration, chest shaking, directed coughing, or forced exhalation technique. CONTROLS: Controls of the study were as follows: no intervention; placebo; coughing; and mechanical interventions, such as mechanical vibration. RESULTS: The search identified 99 potential trials; inclusion or exclusion analysis left 7, which examined a total of 126 patients. Mean score on trial quality was 1.4 (5 = greatest). Three separate trials (N = 51) found statistically significant effects for bronchopulmonary hygiene physical therapy on sputum production and radioaerosol clearance. No trials (N = 126) found statistically significant effects on pulmonary function variables or differences between manual and mechanical techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the small sizes, low quality, and mixed results from the trials, the research on bronchopulmonary hygiene physical therapy is inconclusive. There is a need for adequately sized, high-quality, randomized controlled trials with uniform patient populations to examine the effects of bronchopulmonary hygiene physical therapy.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help

• DOI
• PubMed
• PDF locator
• publisher

A brief summary and a critical assessment of this review may be available at DARE