ArticleERJ open research2023
Impact of high- and low-flow nebulised saline on airway hydration and mucociliary transport.
Article in ERJ open research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Defining minimum media requirements forPeerJ · 2026Article
- Assessment of liquid media requirements for storing and evaluating respiratory cilia motility.PeerJ · 2025Article
- Sex differences in airway disease: estrogen and airway surface liquid dynamics.Biology of sex differences · 2024Review
- Performance Characterisation of the Airvo2Pharmaceutics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Nebulised drugs, including osmotic agents and saline, are increasingly used during noninvasive respiratory support, including nasal high-flow therapy. The authors conducted an Methods: In a perfused organ bath, 10 sheep tracheas were exposed to 7.5 mL nebulised 0.9% and 7.0% saline entrained into heated (38°C) and humidified air delivered at high and low flow (20 and 7 L·min Results: The airway surface liquid height increased significantly with both 0.9% and 7.0% saline: at low-flow by 37.2±10.0 µm and 152.7±10.9 µm, respectively, and at high-flow by 62.3±5.6 µm and 163.4±25.4 µm, respectively (p<0.001). Mucus velocity was increased by both 0.9% and 7.0% saline from a baseline of 8.2±0.8 mm·min Conclusions: The findings demonstrate that nebulised isotonic 0.9% saline, like hypertonic 7.0% saline, significantly stimulates basal mucociliary transport, and the use of high-flow delivery had no significantly different hydration effects compared with low-flow delivery. Hypertonic 7.0% saline suppressed ciliary beating, indicating an increase in airway surface liquid osmolarity, which may have negative effects on the airway surface with frequent use.
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.