ArticlePatient preference and adherence2020
Inhaler Devices in a Geriatric Patient Population: A Prospective Cross-Sectional Study on Patient Preferences.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes and Usability of Formoterol-Budesonide Delivered Through SynchrobreatheDrugs - real world outcomes · 2025Article
- NEXThalerJournal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- How to move towards more sustainable asthma care in Europe: an expert opinion paper.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2025Article
- Unlocking Better Asthma Control: A Narrative Review of Adherence to Asthma Therapy and Innovative Monitoring Solutions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Article
- BDP/FF NEXThaler to Improve Asthma Control Status in the Real World: The NEWTON Study.Journal of asthma and allergy · 2023Article
- Inhalation Devices in 7- to 15-Year-Old Children with Asthma - A Patient Preference Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Article
- Developing a novel tool to assess the ability to self-administer medication - A systematic evaluation of patients' video recordings in the ABLYMED study.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Asthma Care in the Elderly: Practical Guidance and Challenges for Clinical Management - A Framework of 5 "Ps".Journal of asthma and allergy · 2023Review
- Developing a novel tool to assess the ability to self-administer medication in non-demented in-hospital patients: ABLYMED study protocol.BMC geriatrics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to examine the perception and preference of geriatric patients for commonly used inhaler devices in Germany. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis was a prospective, open-label cross-sectional study with inpatient inhaler-naïve geriatric volunteers (age ≥ 70 years). All 106 participants were interviewed and subjected to a geriatric examination for cognitive, motor and fine motor skills before demonstrating the use of nine inhalers in random order. 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.
resultsThe mean age of the patients was 80.8 years. From a selection of 7 predefined general inhaler attributes, ease of use, discrete handling and inhalation resistance were the most important for the geriatric participants. Across all inhaler devices, the volunteers needed an average of 2.47 attempts to error-free use. The device with the lowest mean number of attempts was the Nexthaler
conclusionPatient preference and frequency of inhaler handling-errors may vary between inhaler devices. The Nexthaler was the easiest-to-use and most popular device among inhaler-naïve patients.
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.