ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2017
Comparison of fluticasone propionate with budesonide administered via nebulizer: a randomized controlled trial in patients with severe persistent asthma.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative analysis of real-world data on the efficacy and safety of and adherence to ICS/LABA combinations in asthma management.Respiratory research · 2025Article
- Comparison of Corticosteroids by 3 Approaches to the Treatment of Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps.Allergy, asthma & immunology research · 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
10 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study compared the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate (FP) inhalation n solution with budesonide (BUD) suspension for inhalation administered via nebulizer, in Chinese adult patients with severe, persistent asthma.
methodsThis was a multicenter, randomized, active-controlled, single-blind, parallel-group study, conducted at 26 clinical sites in China. Participants were randomized 1:1 to FP nebules 1 mg twice daily or BUD 2 mg twice daily via nebulizer for 12 weeks.
resultsA total of 317 adult patients were randomized. The primary endpoint was mean change in morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) over weeks 1-12 from baseline, and analyzed in the ITT (n=315) and PP populations (n=283). Week 12 PEF increase from baseline was 26.7 L/min (14.1%) and 28.0 L/min (15.3%) in the ITT population, and 29.1 L/min (15.7%) and 30.1 L/min (16.2%) in the PP population, in the FP and BUD groups, respectively; all improvements were of clinical significance. Lower limits of the two-sided 95% CIs for the least squares (LS) mean treatment difference (FP minus BUD) were -12.19 L/min (ITT) and -12.95 L/min (PP), both above the pre-specified non-inferiority criteria -12.00 L/min and not clinically meaningful. There was no significant difference in the week 12 mean FEV
conclusionsThe 12-week treatment of FP inhalation solution administered via nebulizer is safe and effectively for treating severe, persistent asthma in Chinese patients over 12 week.
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.