ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine2021
Comparison of pulmonary deposition of nebulized
Article in Journal of veterinary internal medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of a Capsaicin Cough Challenge Test to Compare Four Different Techniques for Nebulization Delivery in Cats.Veterinary sciences · 2024Article
- Bacterial Contamination of Inhalation Chambers Used for Cats and Dogs with Chronic Airway Diseases.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Comparison of pulmonary deposition of nebulizedJournal of veterinary internal medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInhalation treatment frequently is used in dogs and cats with chronic respiratory disease. Little is known however about the performance of delivery devices and the distribution of aerosolized drugs in the lower airways.
objectiveTo assess the performance of 3 delivery devices and the impact of variable durations of inhalation on the pulmonary and extrapulmonary deposition of nebulized ANIMALS: Ten university-owned healthy Beagle dogs.
methodsProspective crossover study. Dogs inhaled the radiopharmaceutical for 5 minutes either through the Aerodawg spacer with a custom-made nose-muzzle mask, the Aerochamber spacer with the same mask, or the Aerodawg spacer with its original nose mask. In addition, dogs inhaled for 1 and 3 minutes through the second device. Images were obtained by 2-dimensional planar scintigraphy. Radiopharmaceutical uptake was calculated as an absolute value and as a fraction of the registered dose in the whole body.
resultsMean (±SD) lung deposition for the 3 devices was 9.2% (±5.0), 11.4% (±4.9), and 9.3% (±4.6), respectively. Differences were not statistically significant. Uptake in pulmonary and extrapulmonary tissues was significantly lower after 1-minute nebulization, but the mean pulmonary/extrapulmonary deposition ratio (0.38 ± 0.27) was significantly higher than after 5-minute nebulization (0.16 ± 0.1; P = .03). No significant differences were detected after 3- and 5-minute nebulization. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: The performance of a pediatric spacer with a custom-made mask is comparable to that of a veterinary device. One-minute nebulization provides lower pulmonary uptake but achieves a better pulmonary/extrapulmonary deposition ratio than does 5-minute nebulization.
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.