ArticleWorld journal of emergency medicine2015
Albuterol in the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in World journal of emergency medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acute respiratory distress syndrome: potential of therapeutic interventions effective in treating progression from COVID-19 to treat progression from other illnesses-a systematic review.BMJ open respiratory research · 2023Pooled it
- Mortality of Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Trauma Patients: A Systematic Review over a Period of Four Decades.World journal of surgery · 2020Pooled it
- Association Between Prior Aspirin Use and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Incidence in At-Risk Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Pooled it
- Industry-funded versus non-profit-funded critical care research: a meta-epidemiological overview.Intensive care medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Nebulized Long-Acting Bronchodilators to Treat Acute Respiratory Failure in an Older Adult: A Case Report.Cureus · 2025Article
- Innovative Conservation of Inhaled Medication Devices During the COVID-19 Pandemic Through a Canister Reassignment Process.HCA healthcare journal of medicine · 2020Article
- Efficacy of β-agonists in prevention and treatment of acute lung injury: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Annals of thoracic medicineReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials aimed to systematically evaluate the value of albuterol in the treatment of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). DATA SOURCES: Randomized controlled trials on albuterol treatment of ARDS from its inception to October 2014 were searched systematically. The databases searched included: PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane, CNKI, WANFANG and VIP. The trials were screened according to the pre-designed inclusion and exclusion criteria. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on albuterol treatment, attempting to improve outcomes, i.e. lowering the 28-day mortality and ventilator-free days.
resultsThree RCTs involving 646 patients met the inclusion criteria. There was no significant decrease in the 28-day mortality (risk difference=0.09; P=0.07, P for heterogeneity=0.22, I (2)=33%). The ventilator-free days and organ failure-free days were significantly lower in the patients who received albuterol (mean difference=-2.20; P<0.001, P for heterogeneity=0.49, I (2)=0% and mean difference=-1.71, P<0.001, P for heterogeneity=0.60, I (2)=0%).
conclusionsCurrent evidences indicate that treatment with albuterol in the early course of ARDS was not effective in increasing the survival, but significantly decreasing the ventilator-free days and organ failure-free days. Owing to the limited number of included trails, strong recommendations cannot be made.
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.