SynthesisBMC pediatrics2025
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the treatment modalities available for children afflicted from cystic fibrosis.
Synthesis in BMC pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The role of CFTR in spermatogenesis and sperm quality.Nature reviews. Urology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of different treatment modalities in children with cystic fibrosis (CF) and determine the superiority of specific treatment modalities.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted using different search strings across multiple databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, WOS, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar, up to October 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), case-control studies and cohort studies were included.
resultsThe triple therapy indicated a significant reduction in CF-related complications, with an OR of 0.29 and an RR of 0.54, accompanied by low heterogeneity (I² = 0% for both). Physiotherapy and pulmonary exercises also yielded a beneficial effect, with an OR of 0.24 and an RR of 0.49, without heterogeneity. In contrast, nutritional interventions revealed non-significant outcomes (OR = 6.91 and RR = 2.63), suggesting the need to re-evaluate these strategies. Ivacaftor alone did not achieve statistical significance (OR = 0.34 and RR = 0.58), and the confidence intervals were broad, indicating uncertainty in the effect estimates. Azithromycin exhibited a positive effect on CF management, with an OR of 2.37 and an RR of 1.54. The overall pooled OR across all treatments was 0.71, with an RR not computed due to substantial heterogeneity (I²=93%).
conclusionThe study underscores the effectiveness of certain treatments, such as triple therapy and physiotherapy exercises, for CF while highlighting the considerable variability in treatment outcomes. Notably, nutritional interventions need to be carefully reassessed. The findings emphasize integrating physiotherapy and targeted pharmacological interventions into standard CF management tailored to individual needs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.