Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28096283›Full record

ReviewEuropean respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society2017

LABA/LAMA combination in COPD: a meta-analysis on the duration of treatment.

Luigino Calzetta, Paola Rogliani, Josuel Ora, Ermanno Puxeddu, Mario Cazzola, Maria Gabriella Matera

Abstract readReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Review in European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations in patients with COPD: a systematic review.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors.

Luigino CalzettaDept of Systems Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Paola RoglianiDept of Systems Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Josuel OraDivision of Respiratory Medicine, University Hospital Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Ermanno PuxedduDept of Systems Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Mario CazzolaDept of Systems Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Maria Gabriella MateraDept of Experimental Medicine, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When there are no randomised clinical trials directly comparing all relevant treatment options, an indirect treatment comparison via meta-analysis of the available clinical evidence is an acceptable alternative. However, meta-analyses may be very misleading if not adequately performed. Here, we propose and validate a simple and effective approach to meta-analysis for exploring the effectiveness of long-acting β

Indexed as

Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor AgonistsBronchodilator AgentsCost-Benefit AnalysisDrug Administration ScheduleDrug CombinationsDrug CostsForced Expiratory VolumeHumansLungMuscarinic AntagonistsPredictive Value of TestsPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveSurveys and QuestionnairesTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeVital CapacityAdrenergic beta-2 Receptor AgonistsBronchodilator AgentsDrug CombinationsMuscarinic Antagonists

Identifiers

PMID28096283
PMCPMC9488609

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.