SynthesisBMJ open2020
Inhaled therapies for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative effectiveness of triple versus dual inhaled therapy (ICS/LABA or LABA/LAMA) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2026Pooled it
- The Opportunity Cost of Funding High-Cost Biologics in the Context of Inequitable Access to the Fundamentals of Care: An External Assessment Group Perspective.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy (SITT) for COPD: An Italian expert opinion paper on improving clinical outcomes and equity of therapeutic access.Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine · 2026Article
- Direct pulmonary delivery route in lung cancer: a highway for siRNA therapeutics.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Challenges and Opportunities in COPD Management in Latin America: A Review of Inhalation Therapies and Advanced Drug Delivery Systems.Pharmaceutics · 2024Review
- Why small particle fixed dose triple therapy? An excursus from COPD pathology to pharmacological treatment evolution.Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo integrate evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies on the efficacy of inhaled treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease using network meta-analyses.
methodsSystematic searches MEDLINE and Embase based on predetermined criteria. Network meta-analyses of RCTs investigated efficacy on exacerbations (long-term: ≥20 weeks of treatment; short-term: <20 weeks), lung function (≥12 weeks), health-related quality of life, mortality and adverse events. Qualitative comparisons of efficacies between RCTs and observational studies.
results212 RCTs and 19 observational studies were included. Compared with combined long-acting beta-adrenoceptor agonists and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LABA+LAMA), triple therapy (LABA+LAMA+inhaled corticosteroid) was significantly more effective at reducing exacerbations (long-term 0.85 (95% CI: 0.78 to 0.94; short-term 0.67 (95% CI: 0.49 to 0.92)) and mortality (0.72 (95% CI: 0.59 to 0.89)) but was also associated with increased pneumonia (1.35 (95% CI: 1.10 to 1.67)). No differences in lung function (0.02 (95% CI: -0.10 to 0.14)), health-related quality of life (-1.12 (95% CI: -3.83 to 1.59)) or other adverse events (1.02 (95% CI: 0.96 to 1.08)) were found. Most of the observational evidence trended in the same direction as pooled RCT data.
conclusionFurther evidence, especially pragmatic trials, are needed to fully understand the characteristics of patient subgroups who may benefit from triple therapy and for those whom the extra risk of adverse events, such as pneumonia, may outweigh any benefits. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018088013.
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.