过敏症专家与儿科医生:计量吸入器与间隔器或雾化器的主要选择。

IF 2.6 Q2 ALLERGY
S Melethil, E Yousef
{"title":"过敏症专家与儿科医生:计量吸入器与间隔器或雾化器的主要选择。","authors":"S Melethil, E Yousef","doi":"10.23822/EurAnnACI.1764-1489.392","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Summary: </strong><b>Background.</b> Many physicians believe delivering medications for asthma exacerbation via nebulizers is more efficacious than using a metered dose inhaler (MDI) with spacer. This study aimed to evaluate pediatricians and allergists' chosen method in children under 5 years: MDI with spacer or nebulizer. <b>Methods.</b> A brief survey was sent via electronic mail to a randomly selected group of pediatricians and allergists. There was a 15.8% (430/2718) total response rate. We divided respondents into 2 groups. Group A comprised 289 primary care pediatricians, and Group B included 141 practicing allergists. <b>Results.</b> In Group A, 68.5% (196/286) respondents indicated an MDI with spacer as their method of choice to deliver bronchodilator therapy during an asthma exacerbation; 64.7% (187/289) reported an MDI with spacer is an effective method; and 48% (135/281) believe delivering medication through a nebulizer will produce increased adverse effects than MDIs with spacers. In Group B, 55% (77/140) of respondents indicated MDI with spacer as their method of choice; 48.9% (69/141) reported a nebulizer is an effective method; and 65.7% (90/137) believe delivering medication through a nebulizer will produce increased adverse effects. <b>Conclusions.</b> Contrary to evidence-based recommendations, most allergists, compared to pediatricians, are not only prescribing nebulizers as their first choice for delivering bronchodilator therapy, but also half of these asthma specialists consider nebulizers to be an effective mode of delivery. As far as safety is concerned, ironically, almost two-thirds of allergists believe more side effects are associated with delivering bronchodilator therapy through a nebulizer.</p>","PeriodicalId":11890,"journal":{"name":"European annals of allergy and clinical immunology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Allergists versus pediatricians: primary choice of metered-dose inhaler with spacer or nebulizer.\",\"authors\":\"S Melethil, E Yousef\",\"doi\":\"10.23822/EurAnnACI.1764-1489.392\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Summary: </strong><b>Background.</b> Many physicians believe delivering medications for asthma exacerbation via nebulizers is more efficacious than using a metered dose inhaler (MDI) with spacer. This study aimed to evaluate pediatricians and allergists' chosen method in children under 5 years: MDI with spacer or nebulizer. <b>Methods.</b> A brief survey was sent via electronic mail to a randomly selected group of pediatricians and allergists. There was a 15.8% (430/2718) total response rate. We divided respondents into 2 groups. Group A comprised 289 primary care pediatricians, and Group B included 141 practicing allergists. <b>Results.</b> In Group A, 68.5% (196/286) respondents indicated an MDI with spacer as their method of choice to deliver bronchodilator therapy during an asthma exacerbation; 64.7% (187/289) reported an MDI with spacer is an effective method; and 48% (135/281) believe delivering medication through a nebulizer will produce increased adverse effects than MDIs with spacers. In Group B, 55% (77/140) of respondents indicated MDI with spacer as their method of choice; 48.9% (69/141) reported a nebulizer is an effective method; and 65.7% (90/137) believe delivering medication through a nebulizer will produce increased adverse effects. <b>Conclusions.</b> Contrary to evidence-based recommendations, most allergists, compared to pediatricians, are not only prescribing nebulizers as their first choice for delivering bronchodilator therapy, but also half of these asthma specialists consider nebulizers to be an effective mode of delivery. As far as safety is concerned, ironically, almost two-thirds of allergists believe more side effects are associated with delivering bronchodilator therapy through a nebulizer.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11890,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European annals of allergy and clinical immunology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European annals of allergy and clinical immunology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23822/EurAnnACI.1764-1489.392\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ALLERGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European annals of allergy and clinical immunology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23822/EurAnnACI.1764-1489.392","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:背景。许多医生认为,通过雾化器给药比使用带间隔剂的计量吸入器(MDI)更有效。本研究旨在评估儿科医生和过敏症专科医生对5岁以下儿童MDI的选择方法:使用间隔器或雾化器。方法。一份简短的调查通过电子邮件发送给随机选择的一组儿科医生和过敏症专家。总有效率为15.8%(430/2718)。我们将受访者分为两组。A组包括289名初级保健儿科医生,B组包括141名执业过敏症专家。结果。在A组中,68.5%(196/286)的应答者表示,在哮喘发作期间,他们选择使用带间隔剂的MDI作为支气管扩张剂治疗的方法;64.7%(187/289)的患者认为MDI加隔离剂是有效的方法;48%(135/281)的受访者认为,通过雾化器给药会比使用间隔剂的吸入器产生更多的不良反应。在B组中,55%(77/140)的受访者表示MDI采用间隔器作为他们的选择方法;48.9%(69/141)的人认为雾化器是一种有效的方法;65.7%(90/137)的人认为通过雾化器给药会增加不良反应。结论。与循证建议相反,与儿科医生相比,大多数过敏症专家不仅将雾化器作为提供支气管扩张剂治疗的首选,而且这些哮喘专家中有一半认为雾化器是一种有效的递送方式。讽刺的是,就安全性而言,近三分之二的过敏症专家认为,通过雾化器进行支气管扩张剂治疗会产生更多的副作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Allergists versus pediatricians: primary choice of metered-dose inhaler with spacer or nebulizer.

Summary: Background. Many physicians believe delivering medications for asthma exacerbation via nebulizers is more efficacious than using a metered dose inhaler (MDI) with spacer. This study aimed to evaluate pediatricians and allergists' chosen method in children under 5 years: MDI with spacer or nebulizer. Methods. A brief survey was sent via electronic mail to a randomly selected group of pediatricians and allergists. There was a 15.8% (430/2718) total response rate. We divided respondents into 2 groups. Group A comprised 289 primary care pediatricians, and Group B included 141 practicing allergists. Results. In Group A, 68.5% (196/286) respondents indicated an MDI with spacer as their method of choice to deliver bronchodilator therapy during an asthma exacerbation; 64.7% (187/289) reported an MDI with spacer is an effective method; and 48% (135/281) believe delivering medication through a nebulizer will produce increased adverse effects than MDIs with spacers. In Group B, 55% (77/140) of respondents indicated MDI with spacer as their method of choice; 48.9% (69/141) reported a nebulizer is an effective method; and 65.7% (90/137) believe delivering medication through a nebulizer will produce increased adverse effects. Conclusions. Contrary to evidence-based recommendations, most allergists, compared to pediatricians, are not only prescribing nebulizers as their first choice for delivering bronchodilator therapy, but also half of these asthma specialists consider nebulizers to be an effective mode of delivery. As far as safety is concerned, ironically, almost two-thirds of allergists believe more side effects are associated with delivering bronchodilator therapy through a nebulizer.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
102
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信