ArticlePatient preference and adherence2019
Inhaler technique errors in Romanian patients with asthma - a multicenter study.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2019. 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.
- Biological therapies targeting the type 2 inflammatory pathway in severe asthma (Review).Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2021Review
- The efficacy of a mobile phone application to improve adherence to treatment and self-management in people with chronic respiratory disease in Romanian population - a pilot study.BMC health services research · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNon-adherence to treatment is associated with poor asthma control, increased exacerbations, decline in lung function, and decreased quality of life. M-health applications have become increasingly in the last years, but little research regarding the efficiency of the instructional videos for correct inhaler use exist. The aim of this study is to assess and improve the inhalator technique and to establish which types of errors were made more often with the help of a mobile health application. MATERIALS AND
methodsSeventy-five patients with partially controlled or uncontrolled asthma, using any of turbuhaler, diskus, pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI) or soft mist inhaler (SMI), were included in the study. When they first entered the study, the patient's inhaler technique was assessed by a trained medical professional and the technique errors were categorized in handling, respectively inhalation errors. After the first evaluation, the patients downloaded an application on their Smartphone and were encouraged to use the application as much as needed to remind them the correct inhalation technique. The patients were re-called every three months for evaluation, treatment, and assessment of inhalation technique.
resultsWe analyzed both handling and inhalation errors for each of the four considered inhalers. We observed a significantly reduced number of inhalation technique errors after using the mobile phone application. Turbuhaler median errors were 6.00, and after six months we did not observe errors. Diskus median error was 6.00, and after six months we observed a maximum of one error. pMDI median errors were 7.00, and after six months we observed just one error. Similarly, SMI median error was 7.00, and after six months we observed just one error.
conclusionAlthough technique inhalation errors are very common among asthma patients, video instructions provided through specific mobile phone applications could improve the inhaler technique in order to achieve a better control of the disease.
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.