SynthesisMedicine2020
Inhaler device feature preferences among patients with obstructive lung diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Inhalation technique-related errors after education among asthma and COPD patients using different types of inhalers - systematic review and meta-analysis.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Inhaler Devices as Potential Bacterial Reservoirs: A 30-Day Microbiota Analysis in Non-Cystic Fibrosis Bronchiectasis.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Adherence to Inhalation Devices in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Article
- Perceptions and Attitudes of Patients and Their Family Caregivers on Nebulization Therapy for COPD.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2022Article
- Inspiratory flow profile and usability of the NEXThaler, a multidose dry powder inhaler, in asthma and COPD.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBronchodilators administered through inhalation devices are the mainstay treatment for patients with obstructive lung diseases. Patients do not view devices as interchangeable. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined device feature preferences among patients with obstructive lung diseases treated with handheld inhalers. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS
methodsPubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were searched to identify publications between 2010 and 2019 that met the following criteria:A manual search extended the study period from 2001 to 2019. Random-effects models were used to generate pooled mean effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for preferred device features. Heterogeneity was measured by the I statistic.
resultsNineteen studies (n = 11,256) were included in this meta-analysis. Average age ranged from 50.4 to 74.3 years. The majority of patients were male (57%) and had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (92%).Patients preferred the following device features: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY
findings: Adults with obstructive lung diseases preferred small inhaler devices that were portable, durable, perceived as easy to use, and fast in medication administration. Healthcare providers should give due consideration to the patient's device feature preferences when developing a treatment plan that prescribes an inhalation device.
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.