SynthesisBMC pulmonary medicine2026
Hypertonic saline in non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (Hyper-BRONCHI): an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAirway clearance is essential in managing bronchiectasis, yet the benefit of inhaled hypertonic saline (HS) in non–cystic fibrosis (non-CF) disease remains unclear. While HS improves mucociliary clearance and clinical outcomes in cystic fibrosis, supporting evidence in non-CF bronchiectasis has been limited. With newly available trial data, this updated meta-analysis reassesses the efficacy of inhaled HS in adults with non-CF bronchiectasis.
methodWe systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Embase for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing inhaled HS with control group (Non-HS), either isotonic saline or standard of care, in adults with non-CF bronchiectasis. Outcomes included changes in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁), forced vital capacity (FVC), and pulmonary exacerbation frequency within 52 weeks. The risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool. A random-effects model was applied.
resultsFour RCTs involving 386 adults were included. Compared with Non-HS, HS did not significantly improve FEV₁ (SMD 0.03; 95% CI − 0.07 to 0.13; low certainty) or FVC (SMD 0.10; 95% CI − 0.06 to 0.25; low certainty), and pulmonary exacerbation rates (SMD − 0.02; 95% CI − 0.48 to 0.45; very low certainty).
conclusionIn adults with non-CF bronchiectasis, inhaled HS offers no meaningful advantage over Non-HS for lung function or exacerbation reduction. Larger, high-quality RCTs are needed to identify potential benefits.
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.