ReviewJournal of asthma and allergy2018
Methacholine challenge testing: comparative pharmacology.
Review in Journal of asthma and allergy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- ARTP statement on pulmonary function testing 2020.BMJ open respiratory research · 2020Guideline
- Inhaled anti-TSLP antibody fragment, ecleralimab, blocks responses to allergen in mild asthma.The European respiratory journal · 2023Trial
- Salbutamol Reversal of Methacholine Induced Bronchoconstriction: Vibrating Mesh Nebulizer versus Pressurized Metered Dose Inhaler.Journal of asthma and allergy · 2026Article
- Development of an AI Model for Predicting Methacholine Bronchial Provocation Test Results Using Spirometry.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Novel Artificial Intelligence-Based Technology to Diagnose Asthma Using Methacholine Challenge Tests.Allergy, asthma & immunology research · 2024Article
- Methacholine challenges: comparison of different tidal breathing challenge methods.ERJ open research · 2021Article
- RGS proteins, GRKs, and beta-arrestins modulate G protein-mediated signaling pathways in asthma.Pharmacology & therapeutics · 2021Review
- Drug class effects on respiratory mechanics in animal models: access and applications.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2021Review
- Standardization of Spirometry 2019 Update. An Official American Thoracic Society and European Respiratory Society Technical Statement.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2019Article
- Role of pulmonary function testing in inflammatory bowel diseases (Review).Medicine internationalReview
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Standardization of the methacholine inhalation challenge, the most common direct bronchoprovocation test, is important. One aspect of standardization is the appropriate washout period for pharmacologic agents which affect the response. This review summarizes the available data on pharmacologic inhibition of the methacholine response. Specific (anti-muscarinic) agents demonstrate marked bronchoprotection (up to 7 days for the long-acting drugs) which lasts longer than the duration of bronchodilation. The functional antagonist (beta 2 agonist class of medications) shows marked, but less, bronchoprotection which is relatively short lived and is similar to the duration of bronchodilator efficacy. Tolerance develops quickly, especially to the long-acting agents. Single doses of controller medications, such as inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and leukotriene receptor antagonists, have no effect on the methacholine test, while regular use, at least for ICS, has a modest protective effect whose duration is uncertain and likely variable. Theophylline has a small effect and H1 blockers (all generations) have a negligible effect.
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.