SynthesisMedicine2022
3% nebulized hypertonic saline versus normal saline for infants with acute bronchiolitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2022. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Diabetes-Viral Respiratory Syndemic: Pathophysiological Insights and Precision Management: A Scoping Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Nebulised Chinese herbal medicine for paediatric pneumonia: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Expert group recommendation on inhaled mucoactive drugs in pediatric respiratory diseases: an Indian perspective.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study evaluated the efficacy and safety of 3% nebulized hypertonic saline (NHS) in infants with acute bronchiolitis (AB).
methodsWe systematically searched the PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, WANFANG, and VIP databases from inception to June 1, 2022. We included randomized controlled trials comparing NHS with 0.9% saline. Outcomes included the length of hospital stay (LOS), rate of hospitalization (ROH), clinical severity score (CSS), rate of readmission, respiratory distress assessment instrument, and adverse events. RevMan V5.4 software was used for statistical analysis.
resultsA total of 27 trials involving 3495 infants were included in this study. Compared to normal saline, infants received 3% NHS showed better outcomes in LOS reduction (MD = -0.60, 95% CI [-1.04, -0.17], I2 = 92%, P = .007), ROH decrease (OR = 0.74, 95% CI [0.59, 0.91], I2 = 0%, P = .005), CSS improvement at day 1 (MD = -0.79, 95% CI [-1.23, -0.34], I2 = 74%, P < .001), day 2 (MD = -1.26, 95% CI [-2.02, -0.49], I2 = 91%, P = .001), and day 3 and over (MD = -1.27, 95% CI [-1.92, -0.61], I2 = 79%, P < .001), and respiratory distress assessment instrument enhancement (MD = -0.60, 95% CI [-0.95, -0.26], I2 = 0%, P < .001). No significant adverse events related to 3% NHS were observed.
conclusionThis study showed that 3% NHS was better than 0.9% normal saline in reducing LOS, decreasing ROH, improving CSS, and in enhancing the severity of respiratory distress. Further studies are needed to validate these findings.
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.