ArticleChronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (Miami, Fla.)2024
Effect on Physical Position of Peak Inspiratory Flow in Stable COPD: An Observational Study.
Article in Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (Miami, Fla.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04168775 (A Single Center, Open Label, Prospective Study Measuring Proportion of Patients With Suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow Rate), which is not on this 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.
A Single Center, Open Label, Prospective Study Measuring Proportion of Patients With Suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow Rate (sPIFR) Over 24 Weeks in an Ambulatory Setting Among Moderate to Very Severe COPD Patients
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evolution of Peak Inspiratory Flow During Hospitalization of Patients with COPD - A Prospective Monocentric Observational Study.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2025Observational
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background: We examined the effect of physical position on peak inspiratory flow (PIF) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) using dry-powder inhalers (DPIs) with low‑medium internal resistance (R2) and/or high internal resistance (R5). Methods: This prospective study in stable, ambulatory patients with spirometry-confirmed COPD evaluated the effect of 3 physical positions on maximal PIF achieved. Participants had PIFs of 30-90L/min (R5) or 60-90L/min (R2 DPIs) using the In-Check™ DIAL. PIF was measured in triplicate randomly in 3 positions that patients might be in while using their inhaler (standing, sitting, and semi-upright [supine position with the head of the bed at 45°, neck flexed forward]) against prescribed DPI resistance (R2/R5/both). Correlations between PIF and percentage decline in PIF between positions and differences in participant characteristics with >10% versus ≤10% PIF decline standing to semi-upright were calculated. Results: A total of 76 participants (mean age, 65.2 years) had positional measurements; 59% reported seated DPI use at home. The mean (standard deviation) PIF standing, sitting, and semi-upright was 80.7 (13.4), 77.8 (14.3), and 74.0 (14.5) L/min, respectively, for R2 and 51.1 (9.52), 48.6 (9.84), and 45.8 (7.69) L/min, respectively, for R5 DPIs. PIF semi-upright was significantly lower than sitting and standing (R2; Conclusions: PIF was significantly affected by physical position regardless of DPI resistance. PIF was highest when standing and lowest when semi-upright. We recommend that patients with COPD stand while using an R2 or R5 DPI. Where unfeasible, the position should be sitting rather than semi-upright. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04168775.
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.