Trial reportInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2018
The impact of indacaterol/glycopyrronium fixed-dose combination versus tiotropium monotherapy on lung function and treatment preference: a randomized crossover study - the FAVOR study.
Trial report in International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 2018. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient-reported outcomes and considerations in the management of COPD: focus on indacaterol/glycopyrronium bromide.Patient preference and adherence · 2019Review
- Inhaled glycopyrrolate for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The objective of the FAVOR study was to evaluate the effect of indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) versus tiotropium on peak forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV Methods: Patients with moderate-to-severe airflow limitation (FEV Results: Eighty-seven out of 88 randomized patients completed the study and showed significantly higher FEV Conclusion: This study indicated that, beyond FEV
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.