ReviewChest2011
Aerosol therapy for obstructive lung diseases: device selection and practice management issues.
Review in Chest, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Increasing Nebulizer Spray Efficiency Using a Baffle with a Conical Surface: A Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Optimization of Albuterol Delivery via Anesthesia Bag in Pediatric Critical Care.Pharmaceutics · 2025Article
- Interchanging Reusable and Disposable Nebulizers Used with Home-Based Compressors May Result in Inconsistent Dosing: A Laboratory Investigation with Device Combinations Supplied to the US Healthcare Environment.Pulmonary therapy · 2024Article
- An approach to reduce inhaler errors using Donabedian's triad.Frontiers in medical technology · 2024Article
- Nebulization of extracellular vesicles: A promising small RNA delivery approach for lung diseases.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2022Article
- Glycopyrrolate/eFlow CS: The First Nebulized Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist Approved to Treat Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.The Annals of pharmacotherapy · 2019Review
- Dose uniformity of budesonide Easyhaler® under simulated real-life conditions and with low inspiration flow rates.Chronic respiratory disease · 2018Article
- Guiding Principles for the Use of Nebulized Long-Acting Beta2-Agonists in Patients with COPD: An Expert Panel Consensus.Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (Miami, Fla.) · 2016Article
- The pharmacological approach to the elderly COPD patient.Drugs & aging · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Inhaled aerosol therapies are the mainstay of treatment of obstructive lung diseases. Aerosol devices deliver drugs rapidly and directly into the airways, allowing high local drug concentrations while limiting systemic toxicity. While numerous clinical trials, literature reviews, and expert panel guidelines inform the choice of inhalational drugs, deciding which aerosol device (ie, metered-dose inhaler, nebulizer, or dry powder inhaler) best suits a given patient and clinical setting can seem arbitrary and confusing. Similar confusion regarding Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) coding for administration of aerosol therapies can lead to lost revenue from underbilling and wasted administrative effort handling denied claims. This article reviews the aerosol devices currently available, discusses their relative merits in various clinical settings, and summarizes appropriate CPT coding for aerosol therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.