Evidence Hub

Effectiveness of mechanical vibration-assisted sputum clearance in pediatric pneumonia: a randomized controlled trial with development of an intelligent parameter optimization model

Su-Jing Xue, K. Lin, Ledan Lin, Huijie Zhou, Lishuang Dong, Hua-Fei Chen, Teng Zhang

Frontiers in Pediatrics, 2025

160 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

Background Sputum retention in pediatric pneumonia hinders recovery. This study evaluated the therapeutic benefits of incorporating mechanical vibration-assisted sputum clearance (MVSC) as an adjunct to standard pharmacological treatment and developed a nomogram to optimize treatment parameters. Methods In this randomized controlled trial, 160 children with pneumonia were randomly assigned (1:1) to a control group receiving pharmacological treatment or a treatment group receiving additional mechanical vibration therapy. The proportion of patients showing clinical improvement (defined as “markedly improved” or “improved”) was assessed, along with symptom resolution times, lung function, blood gas parameters, and inflammatory markers, which were measured at baseline and treatment completion. LASSO regression identified predictors of clinical improvement. Results A significantly greater proportion of patients exhibited clinical improvement in the treatment group (93.75%) compared to the control group (75%, P < 0.05). The treatment group also showed significantly shorter times for symptom resolution (pulmonary rales, fever, and cough) and hospital stay (P < 0.05). Improvements in lung function (FEV1, FEV1/FVC), blood gas parameters (PaO₂, PaCO₂, pH), and greater reductions in inflammatory markers (CRP, PCT), were observed in the treatment group (P < 0.05). A nomogram was developed using age, chest circumference, moist rales, disease severity, vibration frequency, and pressure to…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 160 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free