Trial reportRevista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)2024
Comparison of the effectiveness of nebulizer treatment applications in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992), 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.
- Functional siRNA Delivery via Jet Nebulization: Proof-of-Concept IL-1ß Silencing in Macrophage-like THP-1 Cells.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn addition to oxygen support, bronchodilator therapy constitutes the most essential treatment step in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Our study aimed to compare the effectiveness of nebulizer treatments in patients who presented to the emergency department with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
methodsOur study included 60 Group E chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients admitted to the emergency department due to acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease between June and September 2023 (NCT: 06178068). Patients were randomized as follows: Group 1: jet nebulizer treatment; Group 2: dry air nebulizer treatment; and Group 3: classic nebulizer treatment.
resultsWhile an increase in forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume 1 (FEV1) levels was observed in Group 1 patients (in the order of p=0.009 and 0.007), a decrease in residual volume (RV) and total lung capacity (TLC) levels was observed (p=0.02 and 0.05, respectively). At the same time, an increase in FEV1 levels was observed in Group 2 and 3 patients (p=0.04 and 0.04, respectively). A decrease was observed in RV and TLC levels (p=0.02, 0.05, 0.02, and 0.04, respectively). When comparing the respiratory function test parameters at the beginning and on the fifth day of treatment, FEV1 and peak expiratory flow 25/75 (PEF25/75) levels were higher in Group 1 patients than in Group 2 and 3 patients (p=0.01 and 0.02, respectively).
conclusionIn chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients, jet nebulizer treatment is more effective regarding bronchodilator activity than other nebulizer treatments. However, dry air nebulizer treatment may be preferred in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients because it is easily applicable and sterilizable.
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.