ArticlePharmaceutics2024
Respiratory Delivery of
Article in Pharmaceutics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The challenges and strategies for navigatingTheranostics · 2026Review
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
backgroundThe use of probiotic bacteria to improve lung health has been gaining interest. Although the oral delivery of probiotics and their effects are well documented, there is currently limited knowledge on the respiratory delivery of probiotics.
objectivesThis study aimed to investigate whether nebulisation is suitable for delivering
methodsIt compared the dose output and aerosol performance of a vibrating-mesh nebuliser (VMN) and a jet nebuliser (JN) in nebulising LGG suspended in de Man Rogosa Sharpe (MRS) broth, phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), or normal saline (0.9%
resultsThe VMN consistently produced a higher output than the JN for all liquid media, indicating that VMN was more efficient. The fine-particle fractions of both nebulisers were comparable for a given medium. The highest fine-particle fraction was achieved with LGG suspended in MRS broth for both nebulisers (20.5 ± 2.8% for VMN; 18.7 ± 3.4% for JN). This suggests that the aerosol performance of nebulised probiotics may depend on the medium in which the probiotic bacteria were suspended.
conclusionsTherefore, this study demonstrated that the nebulisation efficiency of LGG depended on the nebuliser type and liquid medium of the probiotic suspension.
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.