ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2026
Flow rate dependence of salbutamol dose with various valved holding chambers in vitro.
Article 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInhalation is the primary administration route for managing airway diseases like asthma and COPD. Presently, treatment protocols for management of acute obstruction in emergency care involve using either pressurized metered dose inhalers (pMDI), often with holding chambers (HC), or nebulizers. The aim of this work was to assess the impact of different inhalation patterns and specifically peak inspiratory flow rate (PIF) on drug delivery, as well as to provide a head-to-head comparison between different (HC) in combination with a salbutamol pMDI.
methodsFor the comparison we chose two reusable (Vortex and OptiChamber Diamond) and two disposable (DispoZABLE and LiteAire) HCs. The HCs were connected to an anatomical throat model, Next Generation Impactor, and breathing simulator and the deposited drug content was measured with high performance liquid chromatography. In the used inhalation patterns the PIFs were 15 l/min, 30 l/min, 60 l/min, and 80 l/min.
resultsAll HCs decreased throat deposition by at least 80%, but throat deposition increased with higher PIF. There was some flow-dependency also in fine particle dose (FPD) but the direction of the dependency varied between the HCs.
conclusionsThe performance of disposable devices in terms of flow dependency and throat deposition was similar to reusable ones.
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.