Efficacy of Mechanical Insufflation-Exsufflation Devices as Analyzed in Lung Models: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Peak Expiratory Flow Data

BACKGROUND: Mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E) devices support airway clearance by generating positive and negative pressure cycles that simulate a cough. Bench studies using lung models provide a controlled environment to investigate device performance and optimize settings; however, the lack of methodological standardization limits reproducibility and clinical translation. METHODS: A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) (CRD42023486537). Experimental studies using adult mechanical lung models were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science (search updated November 2024). Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality using a customized risk-of-bias tool specifically developed for bench studies of respiratory devices. The primary outcome was peak expiratory flow (PEF); secondary outcomes included insufflation and exsufflation parameters. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS: O) produced significantly greater PEF compared with lower pressures, particularly in obstructive models (mean difference = 134 L/min, 95% CI 2-267). Methodological quality varied widely, with limited information on calibration, sensor characteristics, and study reproducibility. CONCLUSIONS: Higher pressure differentials generally enhance PEF, but optimal MI-E settings are not universal. MI-E performance depends on pressure settings and simulated respiratory mechanics. Clinically, these findings support individualized adjustment of MI-E parameters based on patient-specific characteristics. The lack of methodological standardization and calibration reporting limits comparability. A structured protocol for MI-E bench studies is proposed to enhance reproducibility, transparency, and translational relevance.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Respiratory Care
Published
2026-06-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/19433654261454978
Primary Topic
Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Efficacy of Mechanical Insufflation-Exsufflation Devices as Analyzed in Lung Models: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Peak Expiratory Flow Data

Myriam Cabrera-Guerra, Tiina Andersen, Aitor Martín‐Pintado‐Zugasti, Raúl Escudero-Romero et al.
Respiratory Care
Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
article

Efficacy of Mechanical Insufflation-Exsufflation Devices as Analyzed in Lung Models: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Peak Expiratory Flow Data

Myriam Cabrera-Guerra, Tiina Andersen, Aitor Martín‐Pintado‐Zugasti, Raúl Escudero-Romero, Jadranka Spahija, Merete Salveson Engeset, Juan Nicolás Cuenca-Zaldívar
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E) devices support airway clearance by generating positive and negative pressure cycles that simulate a cough. Bench studies using lung models provide a controlled environment to investigate device performance and optimize settings; however, the lack of methodological standardization limits reproducibility and clinical translation. METHODS: A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) (CRD42023486537). Experimental studies using adult mechanical lung models were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science (search updated November 2024). Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality using a customized risk-of-bias tool specifically developed for bench studies of respiratory devices. The primary outcome was peak expiratory flow (PEF); secondary outcomes included insufflation and exsufflation parameters. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS: O) produced significantly greater PEF compared with lower pressures, particularly in obstructive models (mean difference = 134 L/min, 95% CI 2-267). Methodological quality varied widely, with limited information on calibration, sensor characteristics, and study reproducibility. CONCLUSIONS: Higher pressure differentials generally enhance PEF, but optimal MI-E settings are not universal. MI-E performance depends on pressure settings and simulated respiratory mechanics. Clinically, these findings support individualized adjustment of MI-E parameters based on patient-specific characteristics. The lack of methodological standardization and calibration reporting limits comparability. A structured protocol for MI-E bench studies is proposed to enhance reproducibility, transparency, and translational relevance.

Respiratory Care
Universidad San Pablo CEU (ES), Universidad de Alcalá (ES), Jewish Rehabilitation Hospital (CA), McGill University Health Centre (CA), Madrid Health Service (ES), Research Institute of Health Sciences (ES), Western Norway University of Applied Sciences (NO), Universidad Europea de Madrid (ES)
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.