Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18542922›Full record

ArticleIntensive care medicine2008

Comparison of lung tissue concentrations of nebulized ceftazidime in ventilated piglets: ultrasonic versus vibrating plate nebulizers.

Fabio Ferrari, Zhi-Hai Liu, Qin Lu, Marie-Helene Becquemin, Kamel Louchahi, Guy Aymard, Charles-Hugo Marquette, Jean-Jacques Rouby

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Intensive care medicine, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Fundamentals of aerosol therapy in critical care.Critical care (London, England) · 2016
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Fabio FerrariDepartment of Anesthesiology, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade Estadual Paulista Julio de Mesquita Filho, Botucatu, Brazil.
Zhi-Hai Liu
Qin Lu
Marie-Helene Becquemin
Kamel Louchahi
Guy Aymard
Charles-Hugo Marquette
Jean-Jacques Rouby
Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris · FRUniversité Paris Cité · FRInstitut Pasteur de Lille · FRPitié-Salpêtrière Hospital · FRSecond Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University · CNUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the efficiency of an Aeroneb Pro vibrating plate and an Atomisor MegaHertz ultrasonic nebulizer for providing ceftazidime distal lung deposition.

designIn vitro experiments. One gram of cetazidime was nebulized in respiratory circuits and mass median aerodynamic diameter of particles generated by ultrasonic and vibrating plate nebulizers was compared using a laser velocimeter. In vivo experiments. Lung tissue concentrations and extrapulmonary depositions were measured in ten anesthetized ventilated piglets with healthy lungs that received 1 g of ceftazidime by nebulization with either an ultrasonic (n = 5), or a vibrating plate (n = 5) nebulizer.

settingA two-bed Experimental Intensive Care Unit of a University School of Medicine.

interventionFollowing sacrifice, 5 subpleural specimens were sampled in dependent and nondependent lung regions for measuring ceftazidime lung tissue concentrations by high-performance liquid chromatography. MEASUREMENTS AND

resultsMass median aerodynamic diameters generated by both nebulizers were similar with more than 95% of the particles between 0.5 and 5 microm. Lung tissue concentrations were 553 +/- 123 [95% confidence interval: 514-638] microg g(-1) using ultrasonic nebulizer, and 452 +/- 172 [95% confidence interval: 376-528] microg g(-1) using vibrating plate nebulizers (NS). Extrapulmonary depositions were, respectively, of 38 +/- 5% (ultrasonic) and 34 +/- 4% (vibrating plate) (NS).

conclusionsVibrating plate nebulizer is comparable to ultrasonic nebulizers for ceftazidime nebulization. It may represent a new attractive technology for inhaled antibiotic therapy.

Indexed as

Nebulizers and VaporizersAdministration, InhalationAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsCeftazidimeLungSwineTissue DistributionUltrasonicsAnti-Bacterial AgentsCeftazidime

Identifiers

PMID18542922
OpenAlexW2040155653

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.