ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2021
Inhaled antibiotics during mechanical ventilation-why it will work.
Review in Annals of translational medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bibliometric analysis of global research on the clinical applications of aminoglycoside antibiotics: improving efficacy and decreasing risk.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Pooled it
- In Vitro and In Silico Evaluation of Polymyxin B Aerosol Delivery in Adult Mechanical Ventilation.Pharmaceutics · 2025Article
- Inhaled Tobramycin Usage in Critically Ill Pediatric Patients Without Cystic Fibrosis: A Pediatric Pharmacy-Association, Practice-Based Research Network Survey Study.The journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAG · 2025Article
- Pulmonary Drug Delivery of Antimicrobials and Anticancer Drugs Using Solid Dispersions.Pharmaceutics · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inhaled antibiotics are a common therapy among patients suffering recurrent or chronic pulmonary infections. Their use is less frequent in acutely ill patients despite a strong theoretical rationale and growing evidence of their efficiency, safety and beneficial effect on reducing bacterial resistance emergence. Clinical trials of inhaled antibiotics have shown contradictory results among mechanically ventilated patients. The optimal nebulization setup, not always implemented in all trials, the difficulty to identify the population most likely to benefit and the testing of various therapeutic strategies such as adjunctive versus alternative to systemic antibiotics may explain the disparity in trial results. The present review first presents the reasons why inhaled antibiotics have to be developed and the benefits to be expected of inhaled anti-infectious therapy among mechanically ventilated patients. A second part develops the constraints of aerosolized therapies that one has to be aware of and the simple actions required during nebulization to ensure optimal delivery to the distal lung parenchyma. Positive and negative studies concerning inhaled antibiotics are compared to understand the discrepancies of their findings and conclusions. The last part presents current developments and perspective which will likely turn it into a fully successful therapeutic modality, and makes the link between inhaled antibiotics and inhaled anti-infectious therapy.
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.