Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28290015›Full record

ReviewCurrent allergy and asthma reports2017

A Review of Electronic Devices to Assess Inhaler Technique.

Delesha M Carpenter, Courtney A Roberts, Adam J Sage, Johnson George, Robert Horne

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current allergy and asthma reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Status of and strategies for improving adherence to COPD treatment.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2019
    Review
  12. Choosing the right inhaler for your asthma or COPD patient.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2019
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

5 authors.

Delesha M CarpenterEshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, CPO 2125, Asheville, NC, 28804, USA. dmcarpenter@unc.edu.
Courtney A RobertsEshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Adam J SageEshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Johnson GeorgeCentre for Medicine Use and Safety, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Robert HorneSchool of Pharmacy, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewMultiple electronic devices exist that provide feedback on the accuracy of patient inhaler technique. Our purpose is to describe the inhaler technique feedback provided by these devices, including specific technique steps measured, how feedback is displayed, target of feedback (patient, provider, researcher), and compatibility with inhaler type (metered-dose inhaler [MDI], diskus, etc.). RECENT

findingsWe identified eight devices that provide feedback on inhaler technique. Only one device assessed all evidence-based MDI technique steps. Most devices provide limited real-time feedback to patients, if any feedback at all. Technologies to assess inhaler technique are advancing and hold great potential for improving patient inhaler technique. Many devices are limited in their ability to detect all evidence-based technique steps and provide real-time user-friendly feedback to patients and providers. Usability tests with patients and providers could identify ways to improve these devices to improve their utility in clinical settings.

Indexed as

Nebulizers and VaporizersAdministration, InhalationHumansMonitoring, PhysiologicRespiratory Tract DiseasesSelf AdministrationTime FactorsDry powder inhalerInhalerInhaler competenceInhaler techniqueMetered dose inhalermHealth

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.