ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2014
Pulsed direct and constant direct currents in the pilocarpine iontophoresis sweat chloride test.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Controlled transdermal delivery of oxycodone by pulsed iontophoresis: In vitro and in vivo evaluations.Therapeutic delivery · 2025Article
- Evaluation of continuous constant current and continuous pulsed current in sweat induction for cystic fibrosis diagnosis.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2018Article
- Working Up a Good Sweat - The Challenges of Standardising Sweat Collection for Metabolomics Analysis.The Clinical biochemist. Reviews · 2017Review
- Thirty Years of Sweat Chloride Testing at One Referral Center.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe classic sweat test (CST) is the golden standard for cystic fibrosis (CF) diagnosis. Then, our aim was compare the production and volume of sweat, and side effects caused by pulsed direct current (PDC) and constant direct current (CDC). To determine the optimal stimulation time (ST) for the sweat collection. To verify the PDC as CF diagnosis option.
methodsProspective study with cross-sectional experimental intervention. Experiment 1 (right arm): PDC and CDC. ST at 10 min and sweat collected at 30 min. Currents of 0.5; 0.75; 1.0 and 1.5 mA and frequencies of 0, 200, 1,000 and 5,000 Hz applied. Experiment 2 (left arm): current of 1.0 mA, ST at 5 and 10 min and sweat collected at 15 and 30 min with frequencies of 0; 200; 1,000 and 5,000 Hz applied Experiments 1 and 2 were performed with current density (CD) from 0.07 to 0.21 mA/cm2. Experiment 3: PDC was used in typical CF patients with two CFTR mutations screened and or with CF diagnosis by rectal biopsy and patients with atypical CF.
results48 subjects (79.16% female) with average of 29.54 ± 8.87 years old were enrolled. There was no statistical difference between the interaction of frequency and current in the sweat weight (p = 0.7488). Individually, positive association was achieved between weight sweat and stimulation frequency (p = 0.0088); and current (p = 0.0025). The sweat production was higher for 10 min of stimulation (p = 0.0023). The sweat collection was better for 30 min (p = 0.0019). The skin impedance was not influenced by ST and sweat collection (p > 0.05). The current frequency was inversely associated with the skin impedance (p < 0.0001). The skin temperature measured before stimulation was higher than after (p < 0.0001). In Experiment 3 (29 subjects) the PDC showed better kappa index compared to CDC (0.9218 versus 0.5205, respectively).
conclusionsThe performance of the CST with CDC and PDC with CD of 0.14 to 0.21 mA/cm2 showed efficacy in steps of stimulation and collection of sweat, without side effects. The optimal stimulation time and sweat collection were, respectively, 10 and 30 min.
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.