Trial reportInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2018
Satisfaction, preference and error occurrence of three dry powder inhalers as assessed by a cohort naïve to inhaler operation.
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 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cepharanthine Dry Powder Inhaler for the Treatment of Acute Lung Injury.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Assessment of Inhaler Satisfaction and Determinants of High Satisfaction Among Korean COPD Patients.Journal of Korean medical science · 2022Article
- Medication Tracking: Design and Fabrication of a Dry Powder Inhaler with Integrated Acoustic Element by 3D Printing.Pharmaceutical research · 2020Article
- Critical Error Frequency and the Impact of Training with Inhalers Commonly used for Maintenance Treatment in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2020Article
- Effect of a Multidimensional Pharmaceutical Care Intervention on Inhalation Technique in Patients with Asthma and COPD.Canadian respiratory journal · 2020Article
- Single Inhaler LABA/LAMA for COPD.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2019Article
- Patient-reported outcomes and considerations in the management of COPD: focus on indacaterol/glycopyrronium bromide.Patient preference and adherence · 2019Review
- What to consider before prescribing inhaled medications: a pragmatic approach for evaluating the current inhaler landscape.Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseaseReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Inhaled medication is central to the treatment of COPD. Various types of inhaler devices, which directly deliver medication to the lung, have been developed. However, patients often exhibit incorrect techniques of inhaler usage. Effectiveness of therapy may be affected by the ease of device usage, size, convenience of use, durability, clarity of instructions and device preferences of patients. This study compares the satisfaction and preference, as well as error occurrence, with the use of Genuair Subjects and methods: One hundred and thirty healthy Hong Kong Chinese subjects aged ≥40 years without a previous diagnosis of COPD and asthma and with no experience of using dry powder inhalers (DPIs) were recruited. Subjects learned to use the three DPIs by initially reading the instructions and then observing a demonstration with verbal explanation. The number of errors committed was evaluated. Subjects also completed a questionnaire to indicate their satisfaction and preference. Results: The satisfaction score of comfort for Breezhaler was significantly higher than that for Ellipta ( Conclusion: Breezhaler seemed to be more comfortable and easy to carry, but users made less critical errors when using Ellipta after reading the instructions only. Genuair provided the clearest indication of correct dose preparation and inhalation.
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.