Ratings were recorded on a Likert-type scale from 1 (participant refused to co-operate with the intervention) to 5 (excellent Bortezomib research buy co-operation). The quality of each intervention was rated by the participant. Ratings were recorded on a Likert-type scale from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). The ratings of treatment quality were made at the end of the 40-min rest period for each intervention. Participant satisfaction with each intervention was rated by participants on a visual analogue scale from 0 (not satisfied at all) to 100 (fully satisfied). The ratings of satisfaction were made at the end

of the 40-min rest period for each intervention. Any adverse changes in a participant’s clinical status were noted as an adverse event. Non-invasive pulse oximetry was used throughout each intervention to monitor for oxyhaemoglobin desaturation.

We calculated the sample size based on the primary outcome. For the smallest worthwhile effect of one intervention versus another, we nominated a 1.5 g difference Pifithrin �� in the wet weight of expectorated sputum produced. We anticipated a standard deviation of the difference between the two values for the same patient at 2.8 g, based on data reported by Bilton et al (1992). With an alpha risk of 5% and a study power of 80%, a total of 30 patients were required. To allow for 10% loss to follow-up, this sample was increased to 34 participants. The characteristics of the participants were described using means and standard deviations for continuous variables and using numbers and percentages for categorical variables. An analysis of variance, which took period and sequence effects into account, was used to estimate the effect of the intervention on sputum weight and FEV1. In the absence of period and sequence effects, a paired t-test was calculated. Co-operation and perceived treatment quality were analysed as the relative risk of a rating of good to excellent. Adverse events were also analysed using relative risk. ALOX15 A

mixed-effect Tobit model was used to analyse the effect of the intervention on satisfaction while taking a ceiling effect into account. Fifty-five patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 34 underwent randomisation (Figure 1). Among the 10 patients who refused to participate, 4 stated that they did not enjoy sport and 6 stated that they did not like spirometry. The baseline characteristics of the participants who completed the study are presented in Table 1 The two groups of participants were comparable at the start of the intervention arms in terms of pulmonary function, nutritional status and therapeutic requirements (Table 2 and the first two columns of data in Table 3). There was also no statistically significant difference in FEV1 values between the start of the first and second intervention arms (p = 0.6).