ArticleEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2019
Most frequent errors in inhalation technique of patients with asthma treated at a tertiary care hospital.
Article in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unlocking Better Asthma Control: A Narrative Review of Adherence to Asthma Therapy and Innovative Monitoring Solutions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Predicting the Risk of Incorrect Inhalation Technique in Patients with Chronic Airway Diseases by a New Predictive Nomogram.Journal of asthma and allergy · 2023Article
- Misperception of poor asthma control in the outpatients clinic of a tertiary hospital in Rio de Janeiro.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2022Article
- Novel approach for real-time monitoring of carrier-based DPIs delivery processActa pharmaceutica Sinica. B · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo demonstrate the most frequent errors in inhalation technique in patients with asthma undergoing treatment at a tertiary care hospital.
methodsA cross-sectional study with a convenience sample of asthma patients aged 18 years or over, treated at a pulmonology outpatient clinic of a tertiary care hospital. The assessment of inhalation technique of users of the dry powder inhalers Aerolizer®, Aerocaps and Diskus®, or metered-dose inhalers was based on the manufacturer's instructions for use of each inhaler device. Patients demonstrated the inhalation technique with empty inhaler devices, and it was considered correct when all stages were performed properly, or when errors probably did not interfere with the treatment outcome.
resultsAmong 71 participants, 43 (60.5%) performed inhalation technique incorrectly. Among metered-dose inhalers and dry powder inhalers users, inhalation technique errors were found in 84.2% and 51.9%, respectively (p=0.013). Errors were more frequent at the exhalation stage (67.4%), followed by breathing in (58.1%) and apnea (51.2%). In the group using dry powder inhalers, the most common errors occurred during exhalation and, for those using metered-dose inhalers, the most compromised stage was aspiration.
conclusionErrors were more frequent among those using metered-dose inhalers compared with dry powder inhalers. Misconceptions are more common at the expiration stage among users of dry powder inhalers and in aspiration among those on metered-dose inhalers.
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.