ArticlePatient preference and adherence2023
Characteristics of Inhaler Technique in COPD Patients in a Specialized Center in Armenia, Colombia: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adherence to Inhalation Therapy Among COPD Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study in a Tertiary Hospital in Quito, Ecuador.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2025Article
- Challenges and Opportunities in COPD Management in Latin America: A Review of Inhalation Therapies and Advanced Drug Delivery Systems.Pharmaceutics · 2024Review
- Reimagining Medication Adherence: A Novel Holistic Model for Hypertension Therapy.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
- Recalibrating Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Nebulizers versus Inhalers for Maintenance Therapy in COPD: Past as Prologue.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this research was to evaluate the technique of using inhaled drugs in patients with a confirmed history of COPD and describe errors in inhaler technique. Patients and Methods: Descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted in patients with a history of COPD using inhalation therapy, attending pulmonology consultation between August 2020 and April 2021 in Armenia, Colombia. A non-probabilistic sample of 80 adult participants was calculated, and the inhalation technique was evaluated (depending on the device used) using a scale validated for Colombia. Descriptive analysis of the qualitative variables was performed using frequencies and percentages. The Chi-Square test and Fisher's exact test (in corresponding cases) were used to look for association relationships between categorical variables. Results: A total of 80 participants were evaluated, of which 66.3% (n = 53) were male, and 32.5% were older than 80 years. Clinically, 30.0% (n = 24) were classified as Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale (mMRC) grade 3, and 51.2% (n = 41) had at least one exacerbation per year. The main comorbidity was hypertension (40.3%). Pressurized metered-dose inhalers with spacer were the most used device at 22.7% (n = 39). Incorrect technique (at least one error in the steps of the inhalation technique used) was found in 48.7%. The most frequent error among all the techniques was the failure to perform pre-inspiratory exhalation. No significant differences were observed between the development of the technique and the characteristics of the participants. Conclusion: Nearly half of the patients who use inhalation devices make errors in the technique. Patient education and training of healthcare personnel represent a fundamental pillar in mitigating the incorrect use of these devices.
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.