ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2016
Evaluation of inhaler handling-errors, inhaler perception and preference with Spiromax, Easyhaler and Turbuhaler devices among healthy Finnish volunteers: a single site, single visit crossover study (Finhaler).
Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of inhaler technique and achievement and maintenance of mastery of budesonide/formoterol Spiromax® compared with budesonide/formoterol Turbuhaler® in adult patients with asthma: the Easy Low Instruction Over Time (ELIOT) study.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2018Trial
- Inspiratory Flow Parameters Through Dry Powder Inhalers in Healthy Volunteers and Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): Device Resistance Does Not Limit Use in COPD.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseTrial
- Dry Powder Inhalation for Lung Delivery in Cystic Fibrosis.Pharmaceutics · 2023Review
- Narrative Review of the Role of Patient-Reported Outcomes and Inhaler Handling Errors in the Control of Asthma and COPD.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2022Review
- Comparison of Two pMDIs in Adult Asthmatics: A Randomized Double-Blind Double-Dummy Clinical Trial.Tuberculosis and respiratory diseases · 2022Article
- Patient's awareness on COPD is the strongest predictor of persistence and adherence in treatment-naïve patients in real life: a prospective cohort study.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2021Article
- The Role of the Pharmacist in Inhaler Selection and Education in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.The Journal of pharmacy technology : jPT : official publication of the Association of Pharmacy Technicians · 2021Review
- General Practitioner Use of Generically Substitutable Inhaler Devices and the Impact of Training on Device Mastery and Maintenance of Correct Inhaler Technique.Pulmonary therapy · 2020Article
- Checking Inhaler Technique in the Community Pharmacy: Predictors of Critical Errors.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Is Inhaler Technique Associated with Quality of Life in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease?Current therapeutic research, clinical and experimental · 2020Article
- Understanding Dry Powder Inhalers: Key Technical and Patient Preference Attributes.Advances in therapy · 2019Review
- EasyhalerDrugs in context · 2019Review
- Article
- Comparison of correct technique and preference for Spiromax®, Easyhaler® and Turbuhaler®: a single-site, single-visit, crossover study in inhaler-naïve adult volunteers.European clinical respiratory journal · 2018Article
- Evaluation of the Efficiency of Single-Inhaler Combination Therapy with Budesonide/Formoterol Fumarate in Patients with Bronchial Asthma in Daily Clinical Practice.Advances in therapy · 2017Article
- What to consider before prescribing inhaled medications: a pragmatic approach for evaluating the current inhaler landscape.Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseaseReview
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCorrect inhaler technique and device preference are positively correlated with improved adherence and clinical outcomes. This study was designed to investigate inhaler technique mastery and device preference for three different dry powder inhalers, Spiromax, Easyhaler and Turbuhaler.
methodsThis was a single site, single visit, crossover study assessing device mastery, handling errors and preference using empty Spiromax, Easyhaler and Turbuhaler devices in healthy adult Finnish volunteers. Inhaler naïve adult participants were observed by healthcare professionals (HCPs) to evaluate the proportion of participants achieving device mastery (defined as an absence of HCP observed errors) using a three-step approach: (1) intuitive use (with no instructions), (2) after reading the patient information leaflet and (3) after HCP instruction. HCPs monitored and recorded errors based on device-specific handling error checklists. At the end of the study, participants completed a device preference questionnaire and rated their satisfaction with the three devices.
resultsSpiromax was correctly used by 37.5% and 93.3% of participants in steps 1 and 2, respectively, compared with 0% and 58.3% with Easyhaler, and 9.2% and 76.7% with Turbuhaler. All three devices showed high mastery (>95%) in step 3. The most common error reported with Spiromax was related to the orientation of the device. Not shaking the device was the most common error with Easyhaler. Errors in priming the device were the most common with Turbuhaler. Spiromax, Easyhaler and Turbuhaler were rated as the 'easiest device to use' by 73.1%, 12.6% and 14.3% of participants, respectively. The HCP instructions clearly improved the use of all devices.
conclusionHigher levels of device mastery, including intuitive/ease of use, were reported by naïve users when using Spiromax compared with Easyhaler and Turbuhaler.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.