Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10796631›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2000

Long acting beta-agonists versus theophylline for maintenance treatment of asthma.

A J Wilson, P G Gibson, J Coughlan

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Theophylline.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2010
    Review
  3. Inhaled Corticosteroids.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2010
    Review
  4. Management of paediatric asthma.Postgraduate medical journal · 2004
    Review
  5. Newer drugs for asthma.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2004
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Updating guidelines on asthma in adults.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2001
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

A J WilsonDepartment of Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, John Hunter Hospital, Locked Bag 1, Hunter Mail Centre, Newcastle, NSW, Australia, 2310. awilson@doh.health.nsw.gov.au
P G Gibson
J Coughlan
John Hunter Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTheophylline and long acting beta2-agonists are bronchodilators used for the management of persistent asthma symptoms, especially nocturnal asthma. They represent different classes of drug with differing side-effect profiles.

objectivesTo assess the comparative efficacy, safety and side-effects of long-acting beta-agonists and theophylline in the maintenance treatment of asthma. SEARCH STRATEGY: Randomised, controlled trials (RCTs) were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group register. The register was searched using the following terms: asthma and theophylline and long acting beta-agonist or formoterol or foradile or eformoterol or salmeterol or bambuterol or bitolterol. Titles and abstracts were then screened to identify potentially relevant studies. The bibliography of each RCT was searched for additional RCTs. Authors of identified RCTs were contacted for other relevant published and unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All included studies were RCTs involving adults and children with clinical evidence of asthma. These studies must have compared oral sustained release and/or dose adjusted theophylline with an inhaled long-acting beta-agonist. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Potentially relevant trials, identified by screening titles and/or abstracts, were obtained. Two reviewers independently assessed full text versions of these trials to decided whether the trial should be included in the review, and assessed its methodological quality. Where there was disagreement between reviewers, this was resolved by consensus, or reference to a third party. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. Inter-rater reliability was assessed by simple agreement. Study authors were contacted to clarify randomisation methods, provide missing data, verify the data extracted and identify unpublished studies. Relevant pharmaceutical manufacturers were also contacted. MAIN

resultsSix trials met the inclusion criteria. Five used salmeterol and one, biltoterol. They were of varying quality. There was a trend for salmeterol to improve FEV1 more than theophylline in three studies and salmeterol use was associated with more symptom free nights. Bitolterol, used in only one study, was reported to be less effective than theophylline. Subjects taking salmeterol experienced fewer adverse events than those using theophylline (Relative Risk 0.38; 95%Confidence Intervals 0.25, 0.57). Significant reductions were reported for central nervous system adverse events (Relative Risk 0.51; 95%Confidence Intervals 0.30, 0.88) and gastrointestinal adverse events (Relative Risk 0.32; 95%Confidence Intervals 0.17, 0.59). REVIEWER'S

conclusionsSalmeterol may be more effective than theophylline in reducing asthma symptoms including night waking and improving lung function. More adverse events occurred in subjects using theophylline when compared to salmeterol.

Indexed as

Adrenergic beta-AgonistsAdultAlbuterolAsthmaBronchodilator AgentsDelayed-Action PreparationsHumansSalmeterol XinafoateTheophyllineAdrenergic beta-AgonistsAlbuterolBronchodilator AgentsDelayed-Action PreparationsSalmeterol XinafoateTheophylline

Identifiers

PMID10796631
OpenAlexW4244157267

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.