ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2015
Extrafine HFA-beclomethasone dipropionate versus budesonide for asthma: a meta-analysis.
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Challenges and choices in the pharmacological treatment of non-severe pediatric asthma: A commentary for the practicing physician.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The small-particle inhaled corticosteroid might be a new available way to treat uncontrolled asthma. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of extrafine hydrofluoroalkane-beclomethasone dipropionate (HFA-BDP) versus budesonide (BUD) in patients with asthma, a meta-analysis was performed. A systematic search was made of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Clinicaltrials.gov and Ovid, and a hand search of leading respiratory journals. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on treatment of asthma for 4 or more weeks with extrafine HFA-BDP, compared with BUD, were reviewed. Five studies involving 949 asthmatic patients met the inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in FEV1 (SMD=-0.03L, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.10L, I(2)=0%, P=0.70), morning PEF (WMD=0.88 L/min, 95% CI -5.96 to 7.72 L/min, I(2)=0%, P=0.80), evening PEF (WMD=6.32 L/min, 95% CI -1.17 to 13.81 L/min, I(2)=33%, P=0.10) and use of rescue medication (WMD=-0.13, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.06, I(2)=41%, P=0.18) between extrafine HFA-BDP at half of the daily dose and BUD group. Individual studies reported no significant differences in asthma exacerbations and 7-point Asthma Control Questionnaire score (ACQ-7). There were no significant difference in total number of adverse events (OR=1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.38, I(2)=0%, P=0.81) between the two groups. Our meta-analysis demonstrated that extrafine HFA-BDP at half of daily dose is equivalent to BUD in improving lung function and use of rescue medication, without increasing adverse events in patients with asthma. Long-term trials are required to assess the efficacy and safety of extrafine HFA-BDP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25784990PMC4358445W38165412What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.