ArticleAAPS PharmSciTech2025
Assessment of Emergency Spacers Versus Traditional Spacers, An In-Vitro Model for Aerosol Delivery.
Article in AAPS PharmSciTech, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Spacers, when used with pressurized metered dose inhalers (pMDIs), enhance aerosol drug delivery and address coordination challenges during inhalation. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of emergency spacers with traditional spacers in delivering salbutamol aerosol from pMDIs. The total emitted dose (TED) and particle size distribution of salbutamol were determined using an Andersen MKII cascade impactor. The study evaluated pMDI alone and with various spacers, including traditional antistatic spacers (Able, Tips-Haler, Aerochamber Plus Flow Vu, Atomizer Chamber) and emergency spacers (Plastic juice cup, MDI PLUS, Lite-Air spacer, DispozABLE spacer, and Paper sheet spacer) at a flow rate of 28.3 L/min with inhalation volumes of 2 L and 4 L, representing children (> 6 years) and adults, respectively. The pMDI alone delivered the highest TED, significantly exceeding all pMDI-spacer combinations at both inhalation volumes (P < 0.001-0.033), except for the Aerochamber Plus Flow Vu at 2 L. The Aerochamber Plus Flow Vu achieved significantly higher TED compared to emergency spacers and the Atomizer Chamber (P < 0.001-0.039) and was non-significantly higher than the Able and Tips-Haler spacers. It also delivered the highest fine particle dose (≤ 5 µg) and exhibited the lowest mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD) with significant differences across devices. Traditional spacers, particularly the Aerochamber Plus Flow Vu, demonstrated superior performance in TED and aerodynamic particle size distribution. However, emergency spacers remain viable alternatives in urgent situations due to their acceptable delivery efficiency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40379925What 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.