SynthesisRevista paulista de pediatria : orgao oficial da Sociedade de Pediatria de Sao Paulo
COMPARISON OF TWO INHALATIONAL TECHNIQUES FOR BRONCHODILATOR ADMINISTRATION IN CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS WITH ACUTE ASTHMA CRISIS: A META-ANALYSIS.
Synthesis in Revista paulista de pediatria : orgao oficial da Sociedade de Pediatria de Sao Paulo. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06201156 (Comparison of Pulmonary Index Score After Treatment With Salbutamol Through Nebulizers vs Metered-Dose Inhalers With Spacer Device For Treatment Of Childhood Wheeze), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Comparison of Pulmonary Index Score After Treatment With Salbutamol Through Nebulizers vs Metered-Dose Inhalers With Spacer Device For Treatment Of Childhood Wheeze
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Novel Common Canister Protocol for Albuterol Sulfate Metered Dose Inhalers: Conservation Strategy and Clinical Outcomes Amid COVID-19 Pandemic.Hospital pharmacy · 2024Article
- Antivirals and the Potential Benefits of Orally Inhaled Drug Administration in COVID-19 Treatment.Journal of pharmaceutical sciences · 2022Review
- Approach to childhood asthma in the era of COVID-19: The official statement endorsed by the Saudi Pediatric Pulmonology Association (SPPA).International journal of pediatrics & adolescent medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the efficacy of pediatric asthma treatment by nebulizer and metered-dose inhaler with the use of a spacer (MDI-spacer) in rescue techniques for asthmatic patients assisted at pediatric emergency units. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review was conducted to identify the most relevant randomized controlled trials comparing the administration of a bronchodilator (β-2 agonist) by two inhalation techniques (nebulization and MDI-spacer) to treat asthma in children at pediatric emergency units. The following databases were searched: PubMed, Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), and ScienceDirect. Two researchers independently applied the eligibility criteria, and only randomized controlled trials that compared both inhalation techniques (nebulization and MDI-spacer) for asthma treatment at pediatric emergency units were included. DATA SYNTHESIS: 212 articles were pre-selected, of which only nine met the eligibility criteria and were included in meta-analysis. Results show no differences between inhalation techniques for any of the four outcomes analyzed: heart rate (difference - Df: 1.99 [95% confidence interval - 95%CI -2.01-6.00]); respiratory rate (Df: 0.11 [95%CI -1.35-1.56]); O2 saturation (Df: -0.01 [95%CI -0.50-0.48]); and asthma score (Df: 0.06 [95%CI -0,26-0.38]).
conclusionsThe findings demonstrate no differences in cardiorespiratory frequency, O2 saturation, and asthma scores upon administration of β-2 agonist by both inhalation techniques (nebulization and MDI-spacer) to asthmatic patients assisted at pediatric emergency units.
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.