ReviewHeliyon2022
Muscarinic receptor antagonists and airway inflammation: A systematic review on pharmacological models.
Review in Heliyon, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of N-Acetylcysteine on Mucus Hypersecretion in the Airways: A Systematic Review.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2024Pooled it
- Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonists for the Treatment of Difficult-to-Treat and Severe Asthma: A Narrative Review Focusing on Inflammation from Bench to Bedside.Journal of inflammation research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Airway inflammation is crucial in the pathogenesis of many respiratory diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma. Current evidence supports the beneficial impact of muscarinic receptor antagonists against airway inflammation from bench-to-bedside. Considering the numerous sampling approaches and the ethical implications required to study inflammation in vivo in patients, the use of pre-clinical models is inevitable. Starting from our recently published systematic review concerning the impact of muscarinic antagonists, we have systematically assessed the current pharmacological models of airway inflammation and provided an overview on the advances in in vitro and ex vivo approaches. The purpose of in vitro models is to recapitulate selected pathophysiological parameters or processes that are crucial to the development of new drugs within a controlled environment. Nevertheless, immortalized cell lines or primary airway cells present major limitations, including the inability to fully replicate the conditions of the corresponding cell types within a whole organism. Induced animal models are extensively used in research in the attempt to replicate a respiratory condition reflective of a human pathological state, although considering animal models with spontaneously occurring respiratory diseases may be more appropriate since most of the clinical features are accompanied by lung pathology resembling that of the human condition. In recent years, three-dimensional organoids have become an alternative to animal experiments, also because animal models are unable to fully mimic the complexity of human pulmonary diseases. Ex vivo studies performed on human isolated airways have a superior translational value compared to in vitro and animal models, as they retain the morphology and the microenvironment of the lung in vivo. In the foreseeable future, greater effort should be undertaken to rely on more physiologically relevant models, that provide translational value into clinic and have a direct impact on patient outcomes.
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.