Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25099256›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2014

Inhaled corticosteroids in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a pro-con perspective.

K Suresh Babu, Jack A Kastelik, Jaymin B Morjaria

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Inhaled corticosteroids and FEVRespiratory research · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Inhaled corticosteroids, blood eosinophils, and FEVInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2019
    Observational
  10. Inhaled therapies in patients with moderate COPD in clinical practice: current thinking.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2018
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

K Suresh BabuDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Cosham, Portsmouth, Hampshire, UK.
Jack A Kastelik
Jaymin B Morjaria
Castle Hill Hospital · GBQueen Alexandra Hospital · GBUniversity of Hull · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Current guidelines limit regular use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) to a specific subgroup of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in whom the forced expiratory volume in 1 s is <60% of predicted and who have frequent exacerbations. In these patients, there is evidence that ICS reduce the frequency of exacerbations and improve lung function and quality of life. However, a review of the literature suggests that the evidence available may be interpreted to favour or contradict these observations. It becomes apparent that COPD is a heterogeneous condition. Clinicians therefore need to be aware of the heterogeneity as well as having an understanding of how ICS may be used in the context of the specific subgroups of patients with COPD. This review argues for and against the use of ICS in COPD by providing an in-depth analysis of the currently available evidence.

Indexed as

Adrenal Cortex HormonesAnti-Inflammatory AgentsHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveQuality of LifeRespiratory Function TestsSeverity of Illness IndexAdrenal Cortex HormonesAnti-Inflammatory Agentsadverse eventsbudesonide/formoterolfluticasone/salmeterolinhaled corticosteroidsmortalitypneumonia

Identifiers

PMID25099256
PMCPMC4137821
OpenAlexW2169401204

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.