Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37436585›Full record

ArticleAnnals of intensive care2023

Aerosol therapy in adult critically ill patients: a consensus statement regarding aerosol administration strategies during various modes of respiratory support.

Jie Li, Kai Liu, Shan Lyu, Guoqiang Jing, Bing Dai, Rajiv Dhand, Hui-Ling Lin, Paolo Pelosi, Ariel Berlinski, Jordi Rello and 10 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of intensive care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
15.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Gas mixture in noninvasive ventilation.Medical gas research · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Short-acting βInternal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Journal of aerosol medicine and pulmonary drug delivery · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors at 18 institutions in 9 countries.

Jie Li *Department of Cardiopulmonary Sciences, Division of Respiratory Care, Rush University, 600 S Paulina St, Suite 765, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA. Jie_Li@rush.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0121-1291
Kai Liu *Department of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Shan Lyu *Critical Care Medicine, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China.
Guoqiang Jing *Department of Critical Care Medicine, Binzhou Medical University Hospital, Binzhou, China.
Bing Dai *Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Rajiv DhandDepartment of Medicine, University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine, Knoxville, TN, USA.
Hui-Ling LinDepartment of Respiratory Therapy, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Paolo PelosiAnesthesiology and Critical Care, San Martino Policlinico Hospital, IRCCS for Oncology and Neurosciences, Genoa, Italy.
Ariel BerlinskiPulmonary and Sleep Medicine Division, Department of Pediatrics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, and Pediatric Aerosol Research Laboratory at Arkansas Children's Research Institute, Little Rock, AR, USA.
Jordi RelloClinical Research/Epidemiology in Pneumonia and Sepsis (CRIPS), Vall d'Hebron Institute of Research (VHIR), Barcelona, Spain.
Antoni TorresServei de Pneumologia, Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona, IDIBAPS CIBERES, Icrea, Barcelona, Spain.
Charles-Edouard LuytMédecine Intensive Réanimation, Institut de Cardiologie, Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Sorbonne-Université, and INSERM, UMRS_1166-ICAN Institute of Cardiometabolism and Nutrition, Paris, France.
Jean-Bernard MichotteSchool of Health Sciences (HESAV), HES-SO University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Western Switzerland, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Qin LuDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang Province Clinical Research Center for Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, and Key Laboratory of the Diagnosis and Treatment of Severe Trauma and Burn of Zhejiang Province, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Gregory ReychlerSecteur de Kinésithérapie et Ergothérapie, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels, Belgium.
Laurent VecellioPST-A, Faculté de Médecine, Université de Tours, Tours, France.
Armèle Dornelas de AndradeDepartment of Physical Therapy, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil.
Jean-Jacques RoubyResearch Department DMU DREAM and Multidisciplinary Intensive Care Unit, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, La Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Sorbonne University of Paris, Paris, France.
James B FinkDepartment of Cardiopulmonary Sciences, Division of Respiratory Care, Rush University, 600 S Paulina St, Suite 765, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA.
Stephan EhrmannCHRU Tours, Médecine Intensive Réanimation, CIC INSERM 1415, CRICS-TriggerSep F-CRIN Research Network, and INSERM, Centre d'étude des Pathologies Respiratoires, U1100, Université de Tours, Tours, France.
Instituto de Salud Carlos III · ESUniversité de Tours · FRArkansas Children's Hospital · USBinzhou Medical University · CNChang Gung University · TWChina Medical University · CNCliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc · BEHES-SO University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland · CHInserm · FROspedale Policlinico San Martino · ITPeking University · CNRush University · USRush University Medical Center · USSecond Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University · CNSun Yat-sen University · CNUniversidade Federal de Pernambuco · BRUniversité Paris Cité · FRUniversity of Tennessee at Knoxville · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical practice of aerosol delivery in conjunction with respiratory support devices for critically ill adult patients remains a topic of controversy due to the complexity of the clinical scenarios and limited clinical evidence.

objectivesTo reach a consensus for guiding the clinical practice of aerosol delivery in patients receiving respiratory support (invasive and noninvasive) and identifying areas for future research.

methodsA modified Delphi method was adopted to achieve a consensus on technical aspects of aerosol delivery for adult critically ill patients receiving various forms of respiratory support, including mechanical ventilation, noninvasive ventilation, and high-flow nasal cannula. A thorough search and review of the literature were conducted, and 17 international participants with considerable research involvement and publications on aerosol therapy, comprised a multi-professional panel that evaluated the evidence, reviewed, revised, and voted on recommendations to establish this consensus.

resultsWe present a comprehensive document with 20 statements, reviewing the evidence, efficacy, and safety of delivering inhaled agents to adults needing respiratory support, and providing guidance for healthcare workers. Most recommendations were based on in-vitro or experimental studies (low-level evidence), emphasizing the need for randomized clinical trials. The panel reached a consensus after 3 rounds anonymous questionnaires and 2 online meetings.

conclusionsWe offer a multinational expert consensus that provides guidance on the optimal aerosol delivery techniques for patients receiving respiratory support in various real-world clinical scenarios.

Identifiers

PMID37436585
PMCPMC10338422
OpenAlexW4383998312

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.