ArticleRespiratory care2023
In Vitro Comparison of Two Blister-Type Inhalers.
Article in Respiratory care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- How to Write an Effective Discussion.Respiratory care · 2023Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEllipta is a respiratory device that is a successor of the Diskus. A major difference between the devices is that Ellipta, especially the 2-strip type, includes a pair of blisters rather than a single blister as contained in Diskus. This study aimed to compare the particle-release properties and mechanical features of both devices.
methodsA pump was used to evacuate air from each dry powder inhaler (DPI) with either a ramp-up or triangular pattern. The particle release volume and peak inspiratory flow of the DPIs were compared. Then the resistance of each component was measured.
resultsBoth DPIs required specific threshold flows for particle release. Inspiratory flows exceeding the threshold values (Ellipta 11.3 ± 4.0 L/min and Diskus 29.7 ± 4.7 L/min using ramp-up inhalations; Ellipta 10.6 ± 2.1 L/min and Diskus 28.4 ± 5.2 L/min using triangular ones) did not further increase particle release volumes. The inspiratory flows required for Ellipta were significantly less than those for Diskus. The particle release volume exceeding threshold flow for Ellipta was approximately 2.62 (ramp-up) and 2.01 (triangular) times those of Diskus. The resistance of one blister was similar (0.44 cm H
conclusionsThe Ellipta required lower inspiratory flow than Diskus, which arises from a higher distribution to blister flow. Ellipta may be preferable to Diskus for patients with impaired pulmonary function.
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.