Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27127650›Full record

Trial reportPulmonary medicine2016

Tolerability of Nasal Delivery of Humidified and Warmed Air at Different Temperatures: A Randomised Double-Blind Pilot Study.

Susan Bibby, Sumeet Reddy, Terrianne Cripps, Steve McKinstry, Mark Weatherall, Richard Beasley, Janine Pilcher

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Pulmonary medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Susan BibbyMedical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington 6021, New Zealand; Capital and Coast District Health Board, Wellington 6021, New Zealand.
Sumeet ReddyMedical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington 6021, New Zealand; Capital and Coast District Health Board, Wellington 6021, New Zealand.
Terrianne CrippsMedical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington 6021, New Zealand; Capital and Coast District Health Board, Wellington 6021, New Zealand.
Steve McKinstryMedical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington 6021, New Zealand.
Mark WeatherallMedical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington 6021, New Zealand; Wellington School of Medicine & Health Sciences, University of Otago, Wellington 6021, New Zealand.
Richard BeasleyMedical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington 6021, New Zealand; Capital and Coast District Health Board, Wellington 6021, New Zealand.
Janine PilcherMedical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington 6021, New Zealand; Capital and Coast District Health Board, Wellington 6021, New Zealand; Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington 6140, New Zealand.
Medical Research Institute of New Zealand · NZCapital and Coast District Health Board · NZVictoria University of Wellington · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDelivery of warmed, humidified air via nasal high flow therapy could potentially reduce replication of temperature-sensitive viruses in the upper respiratory tract. This study investigates whether nasal high flow therapy is well tolerated by healthy adults at 37°C and 41°C.

methodsIn this randomised, double-blind, controlled crossover pilot trial, nasal high flow therapy was used to deliver humidified air at 35 L/min, at either 37°C or 41°C, for three one-hour sessions of use over one day. The alternative was delivered at least 14 days later. Ten healthy, nonsmoking adults were asked, via questionnaire after each day's use, whether they would use nasal high flow therapy while being unwell with a cold or flu if it was demonstrated to improve symptoms.

resultsAll participants completed both interventions. Eighty percent responded "yes" to future use of nasal high flow therapy, for both 37°C and 41°C. There was no significant change from baseline in saccharin times following either intervention or in the following morning.

conclusionsDelivering humidified air via nasal high flow therapy at both 37°C and 41°C is well tolerated by healthy adults. This supports investigation into the potential use of nasal high flow therapy as treatment in viral upper respiratory tract infections. Trial Registration. This trial is registered with ACTRN12614000183684 (tolerability study of nasal delivery of humidified & warmed air).

Indexed as

AirAdministration, IntranasalAdultCross-Over StudiesDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHealthy VolunteersHot TemperatureHumansHumidityMalePilot ProjectsProspective StudiesSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID27127650
PMCPMC4834170
OpenAlexW2326053590

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.