ArticlePharmacy practice
Assessing the use of MDI among asthmatic patients in Saudi Arabia.
Article in Pharmacy practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Asthma is an important public health problem worldwide on account of its prevalence. Education of asthmatic patients about appropriate using of MDIs would be more effective medications. Objectives: To assess the appropriateness of using MDIs among asthmatic patients and to determine the factors significantly associated with correct use of MDI. Method: A descriptive study was conducted on 399 asthmatic patients on internet on Google from 28th October to 28th November 2015. A questionnaire was filled out and SPSS version 21 was used for data analysis. Standard method was used to obtain descriptive statistic comprising means, percentage and standard deviations in order to describe demographic variables. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was used to compare means of contentious and categorical variables of demographic characteristics and medical background with using MDIs and find association between them. P-value of 0.05 and less were regarded as statistically significant. Results: In the studied sample, 87% were age less than 45 years, 74% of cases were females. About 92% of cases were higher and above level of education. More than half of subjects had asthma for more than five years. There were 36% of patients using MDI. Only a few patients (12%) had the correct all skills using MDIs. There were significant association between using MDIs with age and duration of asthma (p=<0.001). Conclusions: Despite the well-known fact that a good MDI technique is of greatest importance, Majority of asthmatic patients have poor skills of MDI appropriate use. Incorrect MDIs technique is common among asthma patients. Health care professional must be focused on training on use MDI among the younger and newly diagnosis asthmatic patients. This indicating the need for regular formal training programmes on inhaler techniques so as to decipher correct practices in inhalation therapy.
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.