ArticlePulmonary therapy2017
A Retrospective Study of the Effectiveness of the AeroChamber Plus
Article in Pulmonary therapy, 2017. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimizing the Delivery of Inhaled Medication for Respiratory Patients: The Role of Valved Holding Chambers.Canadian respiratory journal · 2018Review
- A review of the in vitro and in vivo valved holding chamber (VHC) literature with a focus on the AeroChamber Plus Flow-Vu Anti-static VHC.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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionElectrostatic charge in valved holding chambers (VHCs) may lead to inconsistent metered-dose inhaler (MDI) asthma drug delivery. We compared the AeroChamber Plus
methodsPatients included in an adjudicated claims database with AC
results9325 patients in each cohort were identified. The IR of exacerbations per 100 person-days (95% CI) was significantly higher in the control VHC cohort than the AC
conclusionsThe AC
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.