ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2016
Long-term outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients: exploring the effects of inhalatory devices and their influence on the outcome.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeNumerous systematic reviews have examined the outcomes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease managed with different therapeutic strategies. However, no such studies have specifically focused on the effect of inhalation devices.
methodsA standard PubMed search was carried out in which we identified all randomized placebo-controlled trials conducted in patients with moderate-to-severe or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The clinical end points were exacerbations rate, incidence of pneumonia, and mortality. Meta-regression was employed to assess the effect of the device. For the incidence of exacerbations, an equivalence analysis was also carried out.
resultsA total of 37 studies were analyzed. Four different devices were used across these trials (Respimat(®), HandiHaler(®), Diskus, and Turbuhaler(®)). Our meta-regression analysis failed to show any significant difference between devices with regard to exacerbation rate. Equivalence was shown for some comparisons (HandiHaler(®) vs Respimat(®)), but not for others. In analyzing mortality, Respimat(®) was shown to worsen this end point in comparison with Turbuhaler(®) and HandiHaler(®). Moreover, Turbuhaler(®) showed a protective effect over Diskus in the incidence of pneumonia.
conclusionThe results of our analysis represent the first attempt to explore the effect of the type of device on long-term outcomes. One important limitation was that most drugs were associated with one particular device, and so the effects of drugs and devices could not be reliably differentiated from one another.
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.