ArticleMultidisciplinary respiratory medicine2019
Patients' usability of seven most used dry-powder inhalers in COPD.
Article in Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Correct use and ease-of-use of placebo ELLIPTA dry-powder inhaler in adult patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.PloS one · 2022Trial
- Usability of inhaler devices: a parameter currently misused.Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine · 2024Article
- Lung Function Can Predict the Expected Inspiratory Airflow Rate through Dry Powder Inhalers in Asthmatic Adolescents.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- A Quality by Design Framework for Capsule-Based Dry Powder Inhalers.Pharmaceutics · 2021Review
- The contribution of patients' lung function to the inspiratory airflow rate achievable through a DPIs' simulator reproducing different intrinsic resistance rates.Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine · 2021Article
- The Global Usability Score Short-Form for the simplified assessment of dry powder inhalers (DPIs) usability.Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine · 2020Article
- Correction to: Patients' usability of seven most used dry-powder inhalers in COPD.Multidisciplinary respiratory medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInhalation devices affect both the effectiveness and the therapeutic outcomes in persistent airway obstruction, and the effects are largely independent of the drug(s) assumed. Usability is a complex and comprehensive indicator of inhalation devices' performance. The Global Usability Score (GUS) Questionnaire is an investigational tool designed to assess objectively the patients'-related and unrelated domains of devices' usability.
methodsThe GUS questionnaire was administered to all consecutive COPD patients referring for three months to the Lung Unit of CEMS Specialist Centre (Verona, Italy). The usability of seven Dry Powder Inhalers (DPIs) indicated as appropriate in COPD was tested and compared: Breezhaler, Diskus, Ellipta, Genuair, Nexthaler, Spiromax, and Turbohaler. Patients were divided in two groups, checked separately, according to their DPIs previous experience. A Bayesian Indirect Comparison (IC) model was built to assess "global usability" ranking.
resultsA total of 103 patients were investigated: 74 patients already instructed in DPI use and 29 naive to DPIs. IC analysis proved Ellipta as the device characterized by the highest usability, while Breezhaler the device with the lowest usability in both groups of COPD patients (both with probability > 90%). Moreover, Turbohaler ranked second according to the Bayesian pooling, followed by Diskus, Spiromax, Nexthaler, and Genuair in patients already instructed in DPI use, while the ranking order was not as much well defined in naïve patients, likely due to their too small sample.
conclusionsUsability is a multifaceted indicator that contributes to assess the factual DPIs' convenience in real life. DPIs are characterized by different levels of real-life usability, which can be checked, compared and ranked by means of the GUS score.
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.