SynthesisMedicine2019
Efficacy of tiotropium in treating patients with moderate-to-severe asthma: A meta-analysis and systematic review based on 14 randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Medicine, 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-utility of tiotropium in patients with severe asthma.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2024Article
- Maintenance Therapy for Children and Adolescents with Asthma: Guidelines and Recommendations from the Emilia-Romagna Asthma (ERA) Study Group.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Cost-utility of triple versus dual inhaler therapy in moderate to severe asthma.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2021Article
- Treatment options in type-2 low asthma.The European respiratory journal · 2021Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe goal of the current meta-analysis and systematic review was to explore the efficacy of tiotropium in treating patients with moderate-to-severe asthma on the basis of qualified randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
methodsThe following online electronic databases, such as Cochrane, PubMed, and Embase database were screened to identify qualified studies updated to January 2019 through the use of index words. Several literatures that were relevant to the present analysis were also included. To further analyze the main outcomes, we utilized the odds rations (OR), and mean difference (MD) along with its 95% confidence interval (95% CI).
resultsA total of 14 RCTs with 4998 patients in the tiotropium group and 5074 patients in the control group were included in the present study. On the basis of the pooled results, tiotropium was significantly associated with improved morning PEF (SMD: 3.29, 95%CI: 2.03-4.55), evening PEF (SMD: 3.36, 95%CI: 2.24-4.48), peak FEV (SMD: 2.67, 95%CI: 1.47-3.88), and trough FEV (SMD: 1.90, 95%CI: 0.87-2.92) vs the control group. Nevertheless, no significant difference was observed in peak FVC (SMD: 0.77, 95%CI: -0.21-1.76), trough FVC (SMD: 0.67, 95%CI: -0.18-1.53), AE (RR: 0.98, 95%CI: 0.94-1.02) and serious AE (RR: 1.08, 95%CI: 0.77-1.52) between the 2 groups.
conclusionsIn this review, we summarized the significant effect of tiotropium for the treatment of moderate-to-severe asthma, mainly in increasing morning PEF, evening PEF, peak FEV and trough FEV based on high-quality RCTs. Nevertheless, no significant difference in peak FVC, trough FVC, AE and serious AE was found between the 2 groups. A close comparison of the 2 groups revealed that more high-quality larger-sample RCTs are needed to gather more strong evidence on the therapeutic efficacy and safety of tiotropium for clinical practice.
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.