Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24965834›Full record

Trial reportNPJ primary care respiratory medicine2014

Treatment of asthma exacerbations with the human-powered nebuliser: a randomised parallel-group clinical trial.

Christopher J Hallberg, M Therese Lysaught, René Antonio Najarro, Fausto Cea Gil, Clara Villatoro, Ana Celia Diaz de Uriarte, Lars E Olson

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in NPJ primary care respiratory medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01795742 (Equivalence of a Human-Powered Nebulizer to an Electric Nebulizer in the Treatment of Mild to Moderate Asthma in El Salvador), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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.

NCT01795742 phase2completednot on this map

Equivalence of a Human-Powered Nebulizer to an Electric Nebulizer in the Treatment of Mild to Moderate Asthma in El Salvador

TypeinterventionalSponsorMarquette UniversityRan2012 to 2012Enrolled110ConditionsAsthmaArmsHuman-Powered Nebulizer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Christopher J Hallberg1] Department of Biomedical Engineering, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI, USA [2] School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
M Therese LysaughtInstitute of Pastoral Studies and Neiswanger Institute of Bioethics, Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
René Antonio Najarro1] Department of Medicine, Universidad Salvadoreña Alberto Masferrer, San Salvador, El Salvador [2] Department of Medicine, Universidad José Matías Delgado, Antiguo Cuscatlán, El Salvador.
Fausto Cea Gil1] Department of Medicine, Universidad Salvadoreña Alberto Masferrer, San Salvador, El Salvador [2] Department of Medicine, Universidad José Matías Delgado, Antiguo Cuscatlán, El Salvador.
Clara VillatoroCasa de la Soladaridad Program, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA, USA.
Ana Celia Diaz de UriarteDepartment of Medicine, Universidad Salvadoreña Alberto Masferrer, San Salvador, El Salvador.
Lars E OlsonDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Universidad Salvadoreña Alberto Masferrer · SVMarquette University · USLoyola University Chicago · USSanta Clara University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNebulisers aid the treatment of respiratory diseases, including asthma, but they require electricity and are often cost-prohibitive for low- and middle-income countries.

aimsThe aim of this study was to compare a low-cost, human-powered nebuliser compressor with an electric nebuliser compressor for the treatment of mild to moderate asthma exacerbations in adults and children.

methodsThis was a non-blinded, parallel-group, equivalence study, with 110 subjects between 6 and 65 years of age, conducted in the emergency department of a district hospital in Ilopango, El Salvador. Participants were assigned by random allocation to receive a 2.5-mg dose of salbutamol from the experimental human-powered nebuliser or the electric nebuliser control. All assigned participants completed treatment and were included in analysis. The study was not blinded as this was clinically unfeasible; however, data analysis was blinded.

resultsThe mean improvement in peak flow of the experimental and control groups was 37.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 26.7-48.2) l/min and 38.7 (95% CI, 26.1-51.3) l/min, respectively, with a mean difference of 1.3 (95% CI, -15.1 to 17.7) l/min. The mean improvement in percent-expected peak flow for the experimental and control groups was 12.3% (95% CI, 9.1-15.5%) and 13.8% (95% CI, 9.8-17.9%), respectively, with a mean difference of 1.5% (95% CI, -3.6 to 6.6%).

conclusionsThe human-powered nebuliser compressor is equivalent to a standard nebuliser compressor for the treatment of mild-to-moderate asthma. (Funded by the Opus Dean's Fund, Marquette University College of Engineering; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01795742.).

Indexed as

Nebulizers and VaporizersAdministration, InhalationAdolescentAdultAgedAlbuterolAnti-Asthmatic AgentsAsthmaChildFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultAlbuterolAnti-Asthmatic Agents

Identifiers

PMID24965834
PMCPMC4373316
OpenAlexW2156234357

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.