ArticleActa bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis2023
Choosing nasal devices: a dilemma in clinical practice.
Article in Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intranasal drug delivery: Unlocking the nose-to-brain route for central nervous system therapies.International journal of pharmaceutics: X · 2026Review
- Inter-societal Survey on the topical nasal treatments in Italy.Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine · 2024Article
- Inter-societal Delphi Consensus on the topical nasal treatments in Italy.Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine · 2024Article
- Comparative study of nasal cavity drug delivery efficiency with different nozzles in a 3D printed model.PeerJ · 2024Article
- Comparison of Intranasal Steroid Application Using Nasal Spray and Spray-Sol to Treat Allergic Rhinitis: A Preliminary Investigation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
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 5 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimUpper airway diseases are frequent and recognize different etiopathogenetic mechanisms, including infection, inflammation, and allergy. Therefore, topical treatments are preferable in comparison with systemic medications. Several delivery devices are available on the market, including nasal drops, syringes, sprays, nebulizers, and douches. However, it is clinically relevant to know the better way to use it.
methodsThe present experience compared five different devices that were tested: i) a nasal dropper, ii) a standard nasal spray device, iii) a mucosal atomization device with a nozzle tip, iv) a nebulizer device, and v) a nasal douche. Saline solution with methylene blue was the marker to evaluate the intranasal distribution.
resultsThe findings showed an apparent difference in area distribution among these delivery devices. Conclusion The present experience showed that doctors should choose the most appropriate device for the current disease in clinical practice.
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.