ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2026
Comparing the inhalation of methacholine chloride and methacholine for methacholine challenge testing.
Article in European journal of medical research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spectral Intra-Lot and Inter-Lot Variability in Methacholine.Contact in context · 2026Article
- Enhancing procedural quality and efficiency of methacholine bronchial challenge tests in patients with suspected cough-variant asthma: a quasi-experimental study utilizing nurse-patient communication and respiratory training.Frontiers in medicine · 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
Abstract
backgroundBronchial challenge testing with methacholine was applied to evaluate and quantify bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR) in asthma patients. We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness between methacholine chloride and methacholine for methacholine challenge testing (MCT) in clinical practice, and investigate the adverse events associated with methacholine chloride.
methodsPatients who received methacholine and inhaled methacholine chloride for MCT were included in this retrospective study. All participants completed pulmonary function tests and MCT between January 2022 and February 2024. The provocative dose of methacholine that results in a 20% fall in FEV
resultsA total of 17,352 participants were included. In patients with bronchial symptoms, those administrated methacholine chloride for MCT demonstrated a significantly higher percentage of positive results compared with those administrated conventional methacholine (36.7% vs. 30.8%, P < 0.001). Moreover, PD20-FEV
conclusionsThe data indicated that methacholine chloride yielded a higher positive test rate than methacholine in MCT. Given that only mild adverse symptoms of chest tightness and cough were observed, with no serious adverse events reported, it represents a safe and effective alternative for clinical BHR assessment.
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.