ReviewPragmatic and observational research2017
The Salford Lung Study: a pioneering comparative effectiveness approach to COPD and asthma in clinical trials.
Review in Pragmatic and observational research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-Effectiveness of Single- versus Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy in a UK COPD Population: The INTREPID Trial.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2022Trial
- Clinical Trials With Pragmatic Elements: A Review of Use Cases and Real-World Data Utilization.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2025Review
- The Incidence, Mortality and Medical Expenditure in Patients with Asthma in Taiwan: Ten-year Nationwide Study.Journal of epidemiology and global health · 2024Article
- Clinical Trial Design Innovations for Precision Medicine in Asthma.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2023Article
- Natural History and Real-World Data in Rare Diseases: Applications, Limitations, and Future Perspectives.Journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Review
- The environmental impact of inhaled therapy: making informed treatment choices.The European respiratory journal · 2022Review
- Can Real-World Evidence Help Restore Decades of Health Inequalities by Informing Health Care Decision-Making? Certainly, and Here is How.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Linkage of primary care prescribing records and pharmacy dispensing Records in the Salford Lung Study: application in asthma.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- Observational studies assessing the pharmacological treatment of obstructive lung disease: strengths, challenges and considerations for study design.ERJ open research · 2020Review
- Asthma control factors in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and the effectiveness of ICS/LABA fixed dose combinations: a dual rapid literature review.BMC public health · 2020Review
- Clinical effectiveness of once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol in usual practice: the COPD INTREPID study design.ERJ open research · 2019Article
- Real-World Data: An Unrealized Opportunity in Global Health?Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2019Article
- Innovation in Regulatory Science Is Meeting Evolution of Clinical Evidence Generation.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Salford Lung Study (SLS) of patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a practical, community-based, randomized, open-label pragmatic study on the efficacy and safety of the once-daily dry powder inhaler that combines the inhaled corticosteroid fluticasone furoate (FF) with the long-acting beta
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.