The DOI matches its OpenAlex record.
Standardization of inhalation provocation tests: two techniques of aerosol generation and inhalation compared.
Abstract
Comparison of methods of aerosol generation and inhalation is required to improve standardization of inhalation provocation tests. We compared two widely used methods in 10 asthmatics, by measuring the dose and distribution of radiolabeled aerosol deposited in the throat and lung, and the provocation concentration of inhaled histamine required to reduce the FEV1 by 20% (PC20). In one method, aerosol was generated by a DeVilbiss 646 nebulizer attached to a dosimeter, and was inhaled by 5 inspiratory capacity breaths. The measurements with each method were repeated once to determine the reproducibility of results. Both methods deposited the same dose in the lung, but the distribution of the dose was different; the dosimeter method deposited more aerosol in the throat and central airways. The PC20 obtained with each method was the same. The reproducibility of all measurements in the same subject was similar. The lung dose deposited by each method in different subjects varied to the same degree. The results indicated that the bronchial response to inhaled histamine can be measured as reliably using a nebulizer and tidal breathing as by a more complex dose-metering device. They also suggested that, when the methods are regulated as described, the PC20 will have the same clinical significance.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Standardized challenge testing with pharmacological, physical and sensitizing stimuli in adults
Sterk, P. J., Fabbri, L. M., Quanjer, P. H., Cockcroft, D. W., O'Byrne, P. M., Anderson, S. D., Juniper, E. F., & Malo, J.-L. (1993) · European Respiratory Journal · doi:10.1183/09041950.053s1693 · Cited by 1,049
Self-citationRapid method for measurement of bronchial responsiveness.
Yan, K., Salome, C., & Woolcock, A. J. (1983) · Thorax · doi:10.1136/thx.38.10.760 · Cited by 758
The science of nebulised drug delivery
O'Callaghan, C., & Barry, P. W. (1997) · Thorax · doi:10.1136/thx.52.2008.s31 · Cited by 293
Metadata
- Authors
- RYAN, G. F., DOLOVICH, M. B., Roberts, R. S., Frith, P. A., Juniper, E. F., Hargreave, F. E., & Newhouse, M. T.
- Venue
- PubMed
- Publisher
- National Institutes of Health
- Published
- 1981-02-01
- Volume
- 123
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 195-9
- OpenAlex
- W2154707629
- Cited by
- 205
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Standardization of inhalation provocation tests: two techniques of aerosol generation and inhalation compared. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/arrd.1981.123.2.195
- The paper
- RYAN, G. F., DOLOVICH, M. B., Roberts, R. S., Frith, P. A., Juniper, E. F., Hargreave, F. E., & Newhouse, M. T. (1981). Standardization of inhalation provocation tests: two techniques of aerosol generation and inhalation compared. PubMed. https://doi.org/10.1164/arrd.1981.123.2.195
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.