ArticleScientific reports2025
Aerosol emission and exposure in non-invasive ventilation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Respiratory Particle Emissions in Tracheostomized Outpatients: Comparable to Healthy Volunteers.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
From the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been concern among clinicians whether the use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) contributes to aerosol generation and consequently spreading of pathogens. Most guidelines still classify these treatments as high-risk aerosol-generating procedures. The aim of this study was to evaluate differences in aerosol emissions and exposure with CPAP and HFNC compared to no breathing aid (NBA). Aerosol emissions of 16 healthy volunteers using CPAP, HFNC and NBA were measured with a portable aerosol spectrometer. During each measurement, the volunteers were instructed consecutively to breathe normally, breathe deeply, cough and read aloud a predefined text. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used in statistical analysis. Non-invasive ventilation (CPAP, HFNC) does not produce significantly more aerosol than the same respiratory activities without a breathing aid (median CPAP-NBA - 4.54 1/L, p = 0.816, and HFNC-NBA 2.27 1/L, p = 0.244), deep breathing (median CPAP-NBA - 2.27 1/L, p = 0.378 and HFNC-NBA 4.55 1/L, p = 0.623), speaking (median CPAP-NBA 0 1/L, p = 0.0523 and HFNC-NBA 9.09 1/L, p = 0.0140), or coughing (median CPAP-NBA - 17.31 1/L, p = 0.587 and HFNC-NBA 1.92 1/L, p = 0.365). The results indicate that both CPAP and HFNC have no clinically meaningful impact on aerosol emission. Therefore, the use of CPAP or HFNC does not expose healthcare personnel to greater concentrations of aerosols when compared to normal breathing in healthy participants.
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.