ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine2026
An in-hospital clinical trial assessing nebulized lidocaine compared to saline for treatment of asthma in horses.
Article in Journal of veterinary internal medicine, 2026. 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.
- Clinical and microbiota alterations in performance horses undergoing long-distance transport.Journal of veterinary internal 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCorticosteroids are the main pharmacologic treatment for equine asthma (EA) but may have adverse effects in metabolically unstable horses. Recent pilot studies support the use of nebulized lidocaine as an alternative treatment option. HYPOTHESIS/
objectivesNebulized lidocaine will improve EA-associated clinical variables and airway inflammation. ANIMALS: Twenty client-owned horses diagnosed with EA.
methodsRandomized, blinded, in-hospital study comparing 1 mg/kg preservative-free 4% lidocaine (n = 10) nebulized via Flexineb (twice daily for 7 doses) to 0.9% saline control (n = 10). Clinical examination, endoscopy, lung function, bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) cytology, and inflammatory cytokines in blood and epithelial lining fluid (ELF) were compared between treatment groups using univariate analyses. Global linear models were used to assess covariate impact (P < .05).
resultsThe effect of treatment on clinical variables (clinical score, lung function, mucus, and BAL cytology) did not differ between saline and lidocaine treated horses. However, the severity of EA as a covariate significantly impacted multiple baseline variables and confounded the effect of treatment type. Saline-treated horses showed significantly larger decreases in ELF tissue necrosis factor alpha (P = .04) and interferon gamma concentrations (P = .03), compared with lidocaine-treated horses, independent of covariates. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: We did not identify a difference in treatment effect of nebulized lidocaine compared to saline on clinical variables in hospitalized asthmatic horses. A longer duration of lidocaine administration or focus on severe EA may be necessary to establish treatment effects. Observed changes in lower airway cytokine concentrations suggest that saline may have more than a placebo effect in treating EA.
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.