Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32819337›Full record

ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2020

Inhaler devices in asthma and COPD patients - a prospective cross-sectional study on inhaler preferences and error rates.

Jens Schreiber, Tina Sonnenburg, Eva Luecke

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Inhaled Corticosteroid/Long-Acting βAdvances in therapy · 2026
    Review
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Feedback systems in multi-dose dry powder inhalers.Postepy dermatologii i alergologii · 2023
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jens SchreiberDepartment of Pneumonology, Otto-von-Guericke University, Leipziger Strasse 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany. Jens.Schreiber@med.ovgu.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6795-2282
Tina SonnenburgDepartment of Pneumonology, Otto-von-Guericke University, Leipziger Strasse 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany.
Eva LueckeDepartment of Pneumonology, Otto-von-Guericke University, Leipziger Strasse 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany.
Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInhalation therapy is the backbone of asthma and COPD control. However, inhaler adherence and device mishandling continue to be a problem in real life. Some studies have shown that using a patient-preferred inhaler may reduce device handling errors and improve adherence to prescribed chronic inhaler drug therapy. The aim of this study was to compare the preferences for commonly used inhaler devices in Germany in patients with chronic obstructive respiratory disease. We also pursued the question which properties of an inhaler device are particularly important to the user and what effects age, gender and type of disease (asthma or COPD) may have on device preference and handling errors.

methodsProspective, open-label cross-sectional study in which 105 patients with asthma (58%) or COPD (42%) participated. Validated checklists were used to objectively assess inhaler technique and errors with 10 different placebo devices. For each device, patients were asked to test the handling, to assess the device properties and to name the device that they would most or least prefer.

resultsAcross the 10 placebo inhaler devices tested, patients needed an average of 1.22 attempts to error-free use. The device with the lowest mean number of attempts was the Turbohaler® (1.02), followed by the Nexthaler® (1.04), the Diskus® (1.07) and the Spiromax® (1.10). Patients over 60 years vs. younger age (p = 0.002) and COPD vs. asthma patients (p = 0.016) required more attempts to ensure correct use. 41% of the study participants chose one of the devices they already used as the most preferred inhaler. Overall, 20% opted for the Spiromax®, 15% for the Nexthaler® and 14% for the Turbohaler® or a pMDI. The least preferred device was the Elpenhaler® (0%). From a selection of 7 predefined inhaler attributes, patients stated easy handling as the most important for them. This was followed by short inhalation time and low inhalation resistance.

conclusionsPatient preference may vary between inhaler devices. The lowest number of attempts to error-free use was reported for the Turbohaler® and the Nexthaler®. The Spiromax® and the Nexthaler® achieved the best overall ratings and were the devices most preferred by patients.

Indexed as

Nebulizers and VaporizersPatient PreferenceAdministration, InhalationAdolescentAdultAsthmaCross-Sectional StudiesEquipment DesignFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveSelf AdministrationAsthmaCOPDDevice handlingInhaler errorsInhaler techniquePatient preference

Identifiers

PMID32819337
PMCPMC7439539
OpenAlexW3072897960

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.