Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28373682›Full record

SynthesisNPJ primary care respiratory medicine2017

Device errors in asthma and COPD: systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Henry Chrystyn, Job van der Palen, Raj Sharma, Neil Barnes, Bruno Delafont, Anadi Mahajan, Mike Thomas

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in NPJ primary care respiratory medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 109 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
109citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
17.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

109 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 218 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Observational

49 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Henry ChrystynInhalation Consultancy Ltd, Yeadon, Leeds and Faculty of Human and Health Sciences, Plymouth University, Plymouth, UK. h.chrystyn@gmail.com.
Job van der PalenDepartment of Research Methodology, Measurement, and Data Analysis, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Raj SharmaGSK, Brentford, UK.
Neil BarnesGSK, Brentford, UK.
Bruno DelafontExploristics Ltd, Belfast, UK.
Anadi MahajanBridge Medical, Richmond, UK.
Mike ThomasPrimary Care and Population Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Exploristics (United Kingdom) · GBLondon Bridge Hospital · GBMedisch Spectrum Twente · NLNIHR Southampton Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit · GBUniversity of Plymouth · GBWilliam Harvey Research Institute · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Inhaler device errors are common and may impact the effectiveness of the delivered drug. There is a paucity of up-to-date systematic reviews (SRs) or meta-analyses (MAs) of device errors in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. This SR and MA provides an estimate of overall error rates (both critical and non-critical) by device type and evaluates factors associated with inhaler misuse. The following databases from inception to July 23, 2014 (Embase®, MEDLINE®, MEDLINE® In-Process and CENTRAL) were searched, using predefined search terms. Studies in adult males and females with asthma or COPD, reporting at least one overall or critical error, using metered dose inhalers and dry powder inhalers were included. Random-effect MAs were performed to estimate device error rates and to compare pairs of devices. Overall and critical error rates were high across all devices, ranging from 50-100% and 14-92%, respectively. However, between-study heterogeneity was also generally >90% (I-squared statistic), indicating large variability between studies. A trend towards higher error rates with assessments comprising a larger number of steps was observed; however no consistent pattern was identified. This SR and MA highlights the relatively limited body of evidence assessing device errors and the lack of standardised checklists. There is currently insufficient evidence to determine differences in error rates between different inhaler devices and their impact on clinical outcomes. A key step in improving our knowledge on this topic would be the development of standardised checklists for each device. CHRONIC LUNG DISEASES: CALL TO STANDARDISE RESEARCH INTO INHALER DEVICE ERRORS: Researchers should adopt a standardised approach to investigate the incorrect use of inhalers and its associated clinical implications. Henry Chrystyn at Plymouth University, together with scientists across the UK and the Netherlands, conducted a review of research related to inhaled medication errors made by patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It is widely acknowledged that many patients with lung conditions don't use their inhaler devices correctly, which affects drug effectiveness and disease control. While Chrystyn's team found high critical error rates reported across all devices, their meta-analysis and systematic review highlighted significant gaps in knowledge regarding different inhalers and associated error rates, and how these affect clinical outcomes. The researchers call for in-depth studies into device use, alongside standardised checklists and definitions for such studies to use to ensure consistency.

Indexed as

Drug Delivery SystemsNebulizers and VaporizersAnti-Asthmatic AgentsAsthmaBronchodilator AgentsDry Powder InhalersHumansMetered Dose InhalersPatient Education as TopicPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveAnti-Asthmatic AgentsBronchodilator Agents

Identifiers

PMID28373682
PMCPMC5434773
OpenAlexW2603275790

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.