Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33907390›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Lung Deposition and Inspiratory Flow Rate in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Using Different Inhalation Devices: A Systematic Literature Review and Expert Opinion.

Adolfo Baloira, Araceli Abad, Antonia Fuster, Juan Luis García Rivero, Patricia García-Sidro, Eduardo Márquez-Martín, Marta Palop, Néstor Soler, J L Velasco, Fernando González-Torralba

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. A Proposed Checklist for Optimizing COPD Patient Discharge Processes in Italian Internal Medicine Wards.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2026
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Adolfo BaloiraComplejo Hospitalario Universitario de Pontevedra, Pontevedra, Spain.
Araceli AbadHospital Universitario de Getafe, Madrid, Spain.
Antonia FusterHospital Unvidersitario Son Llàtzer, Palma de Mallorca, Spain.
Juan Luis García RiveroHospital Comarcal de Laredo, Cantabria, Spain.
Patricia García-SidroHospital Universitario de la Plana, Castellón, Spain.
Eduardo Márquez-MartínHospital Virgen del Rocío, Sevilla, Spain.
Marta PalopHospital de Sagunto, Valencia, Spain.
Néstor SolerHospital Universitario Clínic, Barcelona, Spain.
J L VelascoHospital Universitario Virgen de la Victoria, Málaga, Spain.
Fernando González-TorralbaPulmonology Section, Hospital Universitario del Tajo, Aranjuez, Spain.
Complejo Hospitalario de Pontevedra · ESHospital Clínico Universitario Virgen de la Victoria · ESHospital Comarcal de Inca · ESHospital de Sagunto · ESHospital General Universitari de Castelló · ESHospital Son Llatzer · ESHospital Universitario de Getafe · ESHospital Universitario del Tajo · ESHospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOur aim was to describe: 1) lung deposition and inspiratory flow rate; 2) main characteristics of inhaler devices in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

methodsA systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to analyze the features and results of inhaler devices in COPD patients. These devices included pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs), dry powder inhalers (DPIs), and a soft mist inhaler (SMI). Inclusion and exclusion criteria were established, as well as search strategies (Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to April 2019). In vitro and in vivo studies were included. Two reviewers selected articles, collected and analyzed data independently. Narrative searches complemented the SLR. We discussed the results of the reviews in a nominal group meeting and agreed on various general principles and recommendations.

resultsThe SLR included 71 articles, some were of low-moderate quality, and there was great variability regarding populations and outcomes. Lung deposition rates varied across devices: 8%-53% for pMDIs, 7%-69% for DPIs, and 39%-67% for the SMI. The aerosol exit velocity was high with pMDIs (more than 3 m/s), while it is much slower (0.84-0.72 m/s) with the SMI. In general, pMDIs produce large-sized particles (1.22-8 μm), DPIs produce medium-sized particles (1.8-4.8 µm), and 60% of the particles reach an aerodynamic diameter <5 μm with the SMI. All inhalation devices reach central and peripheral lung regions, but the SMI distribution pattern might be better compared with pMDIs. DPIs' intrinsic resistance is higher than that of pMDIs and SMI, which are relatively similar and low. Depending on the DPI, the minimum flow inspiratory rate required was 30 L/min. pMDIs and SMI did not require a high inspiratory flow rate.

conclusionLung deposition and inspiratory flow rate are key factors when selecting an inhalation device in COPD patients.

Indexed as

Pulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveAdministration, InhalationBronchodilator AgentsDry Powder InhalersEquipment DesignHumansLungMetered Dose InhalersBronchodilator AgentsCOPDinhalation devicesinspiratory flowlung depositionsystematic literature review

Identifiers

PMID33907390
PMCPMC8064620
OpenAlexW3156252896

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.