Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42313899›Full record

SynthesisVeterinary medicine and science2026

A Multispecies Systematic and Critical Review of Intranasal Administration in Veterinary Anaesthesia and Emergency Care: Promising Evidence and Overlooked Challenges.

Majid Jafarbeglou

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Veterinary medicine and science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Majid JafarbeglouIndependent Clinician and Researcher, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0223-9392

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intranasal (IN) drug delivery has increasingly considered as an easy, practical and non-invasive alternative to parenteral administration in veterinary medicine, offering rapid systemic and potential nose-to-brain effects. The first part of this review systematically collected and synthesized published evidence on IN administration across animal species, while the second part critically analysed the anatomical, pharmacological and technical factors that determine its success and limitations. Part I consisted a total of 110 eligible studies published between 1991 and 2025, encompassing dogs, cats, rabbits, pigs, ruminants, birds and reptiles. IN delivery has been investigated for a range of purposes and produced clinically meaningful sedation, analgesia and drug reversal, often comparable to intramuscular administration but generally characterized by slower onset and greater variability among species. Despite encouraging and favourable results, IN delivery was not without limitations. Its effectiveness can be strongly influenced by species-specific nasal anatomy and physiology, formulation characteristics and dosing volume. Defensive reactions, poor tolerability, sneezing, nasopharyngeal irritations, hypersalivation or swallowing of the drug are frequently reported. Future progress requires species-specific case selection guidelines and dosing standards, pharmacokinetic validation and developing safe concentrated formulations. Transparent reporting and balanced assessment of both benefits and drawbacks are essential to ensure the safe, effective and ethically responsible integration of IN administration into veterinary anaesthesia and critical care practice.

Indexed as

Administration, IntranasalAnesthesiaAnestheticsEmergency Medical ServicesVeterinary MedicineAnimalsAnestheticsanaesthesiacritical careemergencyintranasalveterinary

Identifiers

PMID42313899
PMCPMC13278371

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.