ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2022
Pragmatic randomised controlled trials in COPD and asthma: how to guide clinical practice.
Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
A 12-month, Open Label, Randomised, Effectiveness Study to Evaluate Fluticasone Furoate (FF, GW685698)/Vilanterol (VI, GW642444) Inhalation Powder Delivered Once Daily Via a Novel Dry Powder Inhaler (NDPI) Compared With the Existing COPD Maintenance Therapy Alone in Subjects With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)
A 12-month, Open Label, Randomised, Effectiveness Study to Evaluate Fluticasone Furoate (FF, GW685698)/Vilanterol (VI, GW642444) Inhalation Powder Delivered Once Daily Via a Novel Dry Powder Inhaler Compared With Usual Maintenance Therapy in Subjects With Asthma
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Retrospective Study Evaluating Asthma Control in Patients on Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol Proactive Regular Dosing with a History of Uncontrolled Asthma.Pulmonary therapy · 2025Article
- Raising the bar in respiratory care by EUFOREA: report of the European Union Parliament Symposium, April 2024.Frontiers in allergy · 2025Article
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 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of real-world evidence (RWE) studies, including pragmatic randomised controlled trials (RCTs; randomised RWE studies), to aid the development of treatment guidelines, is gradually becoming a mainstay within clinical practice. RWE is an integral part of patient-driven decision-making and offers important value to add complimentary evidence to traditional RCTs; these provide a more well-rounded view of the benefits to patient-reported outcomes and improve the external validity of a given treatment versus findings from traditional RCTs alone. Discussions in recent scientific workshops explored the importance of pragmatic RCTs in optimising guideline development and patient care in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma. The Salford Lung Study in patients with COPD (NCT01551758) and asthma (NCT01706198) were the world's first prelicence pragmatic RCTs that compared novel investigational treatments with existing COPD and asthma treatments and, more recently (2021), RWE studies have been used by the American Thoracic Society and the US Food and Drug Administration to support the approval of an immunosuppressant drug in patients receiving lung transplants. This highlights the importance of RWE data in supporting clinical guideline development and emphasises the advantages for the use of pragmatic RCTs in guiding clinical practice.
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.