ArticleMedicine2022
Improved inhaler handling after repeated inhalation guidance for elderly patients with bronchial asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Article in Medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improving Inhaler Technique through Face-to-Face and Multimedia Training: A QI Project in an Ethiopian Chest Clinic.Ethiopian journal of health sciences · 2025Article
- Expectations Versus Reality in Inhalation Technique-A Case-Control Study of Inhalation Technique in Patients with Asthma or COPD.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Respiratory Infections in the Aging Lung: Implications for Diagnosis, Therapy, and Prevention.Aging and disease · 2023Review
- Pharmacotherapies in Older Adults with COPD: Challenges and Opportunities.Drugs & aging · 2023Review
- Predicting the Risk of Incorrect Inhalation Technique in Patients with Chronic Airway Diseases by a New Predictive Nomogram.Journal of asthma and allergy · 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
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate evaluation of inhaler handling is essential for improved treatment of bronchial asthma (BA) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Many studies have described the correlation between age, inhalation guidance, and procedure improvement. Elderly patients should receive proper inhalation guidance. This was a retrospective open cohort study conducted at a single hospital with outpatient open pharmacies that provided inhalation guidance to patients of BA and COPD. A total of 525 cases were included in the study. The median age was 71 years with no significant difference between genders (males: 71 ± 16.0 years; females: 72 ± 16.1 years; P = .24). There were 226 males (43.0%) and 299 females (57.0%; P = .03). BA was significantly more prevalent than COPD (P < .001). There was no significant difference in dry powder inhaler (DPI) and pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) visits in those <60 years of age (P = .23). pMDI was used significantly more often than DPI in those aged 60 to 90 years of age (P < .001). In both <70 and >70 years of age, the most common error with DPI use was improper inhalation speed, which reduced (improved) at the third visit. Gargling errors were most common with DPI use at the second visit and with pMDI at the first visit in both age groups, which subsequently reduced rapidly. Continuous repeated guidance steadily and significantly decreased errors with all devices (P < .001 for DPI, pMDI, and soft mist inhaler). Elderly cases (>70 years of age) should undergo continuous repeated guidance to reduce inhalation errors like inhalation speed and gargling errors.
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.