Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37319354›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2023

Nebulised hypertonic saline for cystic fibrosis.

Peter Wark, Vanessa M McDonald, Sherie Smith

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Mucoactive agents in bronchiectasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Patient-managed interventions for adults with bronchiectasis: evidence, challenges and prospects.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2024
    Review
  7. European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2024
    Review
  8. [Primary ciliary dyskinesia].Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024
    Review
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Peter WarkCentre for Healthy Lungs, Hunter Medical Research Institute, University of Newcastle, New Lambton, Australia.
Vanessa M McDonaldCentre of Excellence in Severe Asthma and Priority Research Centre for Healthy Lungs, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.
Sherie SmithDivision of Child Health, Obstetrics & Gynaecology (COG), School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Hunter Medical Research Institute · AUUniversity of Newcastle Australia · AUUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHypertonic saline enhances mucociliary clearance and may lessen the destructive inflammatory process in the airways. This is an update of a previously published review.

objectivesTo investigate efficacy and tolerability of nebulised hypertonic saline treatment in people with cystic fibrosis (CF) compared to placebo or other treatments that enhance mucociliary clearance. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched ongoing trials databases. Most recent search: 25 April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials assessing hypertonic saline compared to placebo or other mucolytic therapy, for any duration or dose regimen in people with CF (any age or disease severity). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently reviewed all identified trials and data, and assessed trial quality. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. For cross-over trials we stipulated a one-week washout period. We planned to use results from a paired analysis in the review, but this was only possible in one trial. For other cross-over trials, we chose to treat the trials as if they were parallel. MAIN

resultsWe included 24 trials (1318 participants, aged one month to 56 years); we excluded 29 trials, two trials are ongoing and six are awaiting classification. We judged 15 of the 24 included trials to have a high risk of bias due to participants' ability to discern the taste of the solutions. Hypertonic saline 3% to 7% versus placebo (stable disease) We are uncertain whether the regular use of nebulised hypertonic saline in stable lung disease leads to an improvement in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV AUTHORS'

conclusionsWe are very uncertain if regular use of nebulised hypertonic saline by adults and children over the age of 12 years with CF results in an improvement in lung function after four weeks (three trials; very low-certainty evidence); there was no difference seen at 48 weeks (one trial; low-certainty evidence). Hypertonic saline improved LCI modestly in children under the age of six years. Evidence from one small cross-over trial in children indicates that rhDNase may lead to better lung function than hypertonic saline at three months; qualifying this, we highlight that while the study did demonstrate that the improvement in FEV

Indexed as

Cystic FibrosisAdministration, InhalationAdolescentAdultAmilorideChildChild, PreschoolHumansInfantMannitolMiddle AgedSaline Solution, HypertonicSodiumXylitolYoung AdultAmilorideMannitolSaline Solution, HypertonicSodiumXylitol

Identifiers

PMID37319354
PMCPMC10265937
OpenAlexW4380609851

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.