Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24817558›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2014

Inhaled hyperosmolar agents for bronchiectasis.

Anna Hart, Karnam Sugumar, Stephen J Milan, Stephen J Fowler, Iain Crossingham

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Mucoactive agents in bronchiectasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Inhaled mannitol for cystic fibrosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. ERS statement on the multidisciplinary respiratory management of ataxia telangiectasia.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2015
    Guideline
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Non-antimicrobial airway management of non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis.Journal of clinical tuberculosis and other mycobacterial diseases · 2018
    Review
  19. Journal of clinical tuberculosis and other mycobacterial diseases · 2017
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Anna HartLancaster Medical School, Clinical Research Hub, Lancaster University, Lancaster, Lancashire, UK, LA1 4TB.
Karnam Sugumar
Stephen J Milan
Stephen J Fowler
Iain Crossingham
Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBLancaster University · GBRoyal Blackburn Teaching Hospital · GBSt George's, University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMucus retention in the lungs is a prominent feature of bronchiectasis. The stagnant mucus becomes chronically colonised with bacteria, which elicit a host neutrophilic response. This fails to eliminate the bacteria, and the large concentration of host-derived protease may contribute to the airway damage. The sensation of retained mucus is itself a cause of suffering, and the failure to maintain airway sterility probably contributes to the frequent respiratory infections experienced by many patients.Hypertonic saline inhalation is known to accelerate tracheobronchial clearance in many conditions, probably by inducing a liquid flux into the airway surface, which alters mucus rheology in a way favourable to mucociliary clearance. Inhaled dry powder mannitol has a similar effect. Such agents are an attractive approach to the problem of mucostasis, and deserve further clinical evaluation.

objectivesTo determine whether inhaled hyperosmolar substances are effective in the treatment of bronchiectasis. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, trials registries, and the reference lists of included studies and review articles. Searches are current up to April 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: Any randomised controlled trial (RCT) using hyperosmolar inhalation in patients with bronchiectasis not caused by cystic fibrosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed studies for suitability. We used standard methods recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN

resultsEleven studies met the inclusion criteria of the review (1021 participants).Five studies on 833 participants compared inhaled mannitol with placebo but poor outcome reporting meant we could pool very little data and most outcomes were reported by only one study. One 12-month trial on 461 participants provided results for exacerbations and demonstrated an advantage for mannitol in terms of time to first exacerbation (median time to exacerbation 165 versus 124 days for mannitol and placebo respectively (hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 0.96, P = 0.022) and number of days on antibiotics for bronchiectasis exacerbations was significantly better with mannitol (risk ratio (RR) 0.76, 95%CI 0.58 to 1.00, P = 0.0496). However, exacerbation rate per year was not significantly different between mannitol and placebo (RR 0.92 95% CI 0.78 to 1.08). The quality of this evidence was rated as moderate. There was also an indication, from only three trials, again based on moderate quality evidence, that mannitol improves health-related quality of life (mean difference (MD) -2.05; 95% CI -3.69 to -0.40). An analysis of adverse events data, also based on moderate quality evidence, revealed no difference between mannitol and placebo (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.51). Two additional small trials on 25 participants compared mannitol versus no treatment and the data from these studies were inconclusive.Four studies (combined N = 113) compared hypertonic saline versus isotonic saline. On most outcomes there were conflicting results and the opportunities for the statistical aggregation of data from studies was very limited. It is not possible to draw robust conclusions for this comparison and judgments should be reserved until further data are available. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is an indication from a single, large, unpublished study that inhaled mannitol increases time to first exacerbation in patients with bronchiectasis. In patients with near normal lung function, spirometry does not change dramatically with mannitol and adverse events are not more frequent than placebo. Further investigation is required in a patient population with impaired lung function.It is not possible to draw firm conclusions regarding the effect of nebulised hypertonic saline due to significant differences in the methodology, patient groups, and findings amongst the limited data available. The data suggest that it is unlikely to have benefit over isotonic saline in patients with milder disease, and hence future studies should test its use in those with more severe disease.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsBronchiectasisCross-Over StudiesHealth StatusHumansHypertonic SolutionsMannitolMucociliary ClearanceOsmolar ConcentrationPowdersRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnti-Bacterial AgentsHypertonic SolutionsMannitolPowders

Identifiers

PMID24817558
PMCPMC10804371
OpenAlexW1563900348

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.