Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11869627›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2002

Pressurised metered-dose inhalers versus all other hand-held inhalers devices to deliver bronchodilators for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

F S Ram, D M Brocklebank, M Muers, J Wright, P W Jones

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. A review of nebulized drug delivery in COPD.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2016
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

F S RamDepartment of Physiological Medicine, St George's Hospital Medical School, Level 0, Jenner Wing, Cranmer Terrace, London, UK, SW17 0RE. fram@sghms.ac.uk
D M Brocklebank
M Muers
J Wright
P W Jones
Alexandra Hospital · GBBradford Royal Infirmary · GBLeeds General Infirmary · GBMassey University · NZSt George's, University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBronchodilator therapy for COPD may be delivered by a number of different inhaler devices.

objectivesTo determine the efficacy of pressurised metered dose inhalers (pMDI) compared to any other handheld inhaler device for the delivery of bronchodilators in non-acute COPD. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Collaboration, Asthma and Wheeze Randomised Controlled Clinical Trials register was searched for studies. The UK pharmaceutical companies who manufacture inhaled COPD medication were also contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two reviewers independently reviewed the results of computerised search and any potentially relevant articles were obtained in full. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One reviewer extracted details of each trial and a second reviewer checked all extracted data. Dichotomous outcomes such as exacerbation rate were assessed using relative risk, with 95% confidence interval (CI). MAIN

resultsFourteen studies appeared potentially relevant but only three studies (61 patients) met the entry criteria. Two studies compared a dry powder device (Turbuhaler or Rotahaler) with a pMDI for beta2-agonist delivery, and one (36 patients cross-over design) the Respimat (soft mist device for ipratropium) vs a pMDI. For the Turbuhaler and Rotahaler, none of the reported outcome measures were significantly different. The Rotahaler study used a high and low dose of medication with or without large volume spacer. The study using the Respimat showed significant increases in FEV1 when compared to a pMDI (difference in change from base line 70 ml, 95% CI 10, 130 ml). The effect on change in FVC was of similar size. There were no differences between these two devices for any other reported outcomes. Although none of the included studies required prior patient ability to use any of the inhalers (and no study mentioned device training), it was assumed that all patients randomised into the study would have undergone training in use of the study inhalers and were capable of using those devices. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsIn patients with stable COPD, pMDI produced similar outcomes to a dry powder device for delivering beta2-agonists, but the very small number of studies and included patients does not permit firm conclusions to be drawn. The soft mist device for ipratropium was more effective than a pMDI, but the data come from one small study. There need to be further well designed randomised controlled trials to define the role of inhaler devices using bronchodilators in stable COPD.

Indexed as

Nebulizers and VaporizersAdrenergic AgonistsBronchodilator AgentsHumansPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAdrenergic AgonistsBronchodilator Agents

Identifiers

PMID11869627
PMCPMC8436731
OpenAlexW1843888251

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.