Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35203667›Full record

ArticleBiomedicines2022

Relationship between Peak Inspiratory Flow and Patient and Disease Characteristics in Individuals with COPD-A Systematic Scoping Review.

Marika T Leving, Janwillem Kocks, Sinthia Bosnic-Anticevich, Richard Dekhuijzen, Omar S Usmani

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Biomedicines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Clinical Implications of Peak Inspiratory Flow in COPD: Post Hoc Analyses of the TRONARTO Study.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
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

5 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Marika T LevingGeneral Practitioners Research Institute, 9713 GH Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2732-4406
Janwillem KocksGeneral Practitioners Research Institute, 9713 GH Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2760-0693
Sinthia Bosnic-AnticevichWoolcock Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW 2037, Australia.
Richard DekhuijzenRadboud University Medical Center, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Omar S UsmaniNational Heart and Lung Institute (NHLI), Imperial College London, London SW3 6LY, UK.
General Practitioners Research Institute · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLRoyal Brompton Hospital · GBThe University of Sydney · AUUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

Boehringer Ingelheim N/AGeneral Practitioners Research Institute N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Optimal delivery of medication via dry powder inhalers, the most commonly prescribed inhaler type, is dependent on a patient achieving a minimum level of inspiratory flow during inhalation. However, measurement of peak inspiratory flow (PIF) against the simulated resistance of a dry powder inhaler is not frequently performed in clinical practice due to time or equipment limitations. Therefore, defining which patient characteristics are associated with lower PIF is critically important to help clinicians optimize their inhaler choice through a more personalized approach to prescribing. The objective of this scoping review was to systematically evaluate patient and disease characteristics determining PIF in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Medline, Cochrane and Embase databases were systematically searched for relevant studies on PIF in patients with COPD published in English between January 2000 and May 2021. The quality of evidence was assessed using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation checklist. Of 3382 citations retrieved, 35 publications were included in the review (nine scored as high quality, 13 as moderate, nine as low, and four as very low). Factors correlating with PIF in >70% of papers included both patient characteristics (lower PIF correlated with increased age, female gender, shorter height, decreased handgrip and inspiratory muscle strength, and certain comorbidities) and disease characteristics (lower PIF correlated with markers of lung hyperinflation, lower peak expiratory flow [PEF] and increased disease severity). Other factors correlating with adequate/optimal or improved PIF included education/counseling and exercise/inspiratory muscle training; impaired physical function and errors in inhalation technique/non-adherence were associated with low/suboptimal PIF. In conclusion, clinicians should measure PIF against the simulated resistance of a particular device wherever possible. However, as this often cannot be done due to lack of resources or time, the patient and disease characteristics that influence PIF, as identified in this review, can help clinicians to choose the most appropriate inhaler type for their patients.

Indexed as

COPDdeterminantsinhalation therapypatient characteristicspeak inspiratory flowsuboptimalsystematic scoping review

Identifiers

PMID35203667
PMCPMC8962311
OpenAlexW4213124250

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.