ReviewFrontiers in medicine2026
Optimizing aerosol therapy in mechanically ventilated acute respiratory distress syndrome: a delivery-fidelity framework.
Review in Frontiers in 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aerosol therapy is frequently used in adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, yet its clinical effects remain difficult to interpret because prescribed dose is not equivalent to lung exposure. This Mini Review examines aerosol therapy as a drug-device-circuit-patient intervention by integrating ARDS guideline context, delivery evidence, drug-class literature, and implementation data. Exposure is shaped by generator and formulation, fill and residual volume, position, humidification, ventilator flow, artificial airway, filters, inline components, and interruptions. Most technical evidence is bench-derived and does not establish ARDS-specific clinical benefit. We retain gaseous inhaled nitric oxide only as a non-aerosol physiological comparator. Nebulized prostacyclins may improve oxygenation, but patient-centered benefit remains uncertain; aerosolized antibiotics should be interpreted within infection-defined ventilator-associated pneumonia; and bronchodilators or mucoactive therapies should not be used routinely on the basis of the ARDS label alone. Optimization should seek reproducible, target-appropriate exposure while preserving lung-protective ventilation, circuit integrity, treatment continuity, filtration surveillance, and staff and environmental safety. We propose a candidate minimum delivery-reporting dataset, while emphasizing that it is not a validated exposure surrogate or clinical score. Future studies should align mechanism, delivery, phenotype, response window, safety, and patient-centered endpoints to distinguish biological failure from inadequate or interrupted exposure.
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.