ArticleEuropean clinical respiratory journal2024
Assessment of bronchodilator responsiveness to salbutamol or ipratropium using different criteria in treatment-naïve patients with asthma and COPD.
Article in European clinical respiratory journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of ERS/ATS guidelines across versions: differences in the application of bronchodilator responsiveness criteria in pediatric asthma by age subgroups (2005 vs 2021).Italian journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
- Evaluation of recently proposed thresholds to define spirometry bronchodilator response.ERJ open research · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The criteria for significant bronchodilator responsiveness (BDR) were published in 2005 by the European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society, which were revised in 2021, however, data on the agreement between these two recommendations in untreated patients with airflow limitation are missing. Aims: We aimed to study BDR to salbutamol (SABA) or ipratropium bromide (SAMA) in patients with suspected bronchial asthma or COPD at initial clinical presentation using the 2005 and 2021 criteria and explore clinical factors associated with BDR+. Methods: Symptomatic, treatment-naïve patients with expiratory airflow limitation ( Results: We found a good agreement between the number of 2005-BDR+ and 2021-BDR+ patients at 15 and 30 minutes post-salbutamol and post-ipratropium (88.6-94.8%). More patients showed BDR+ after 30 minutes than following 15 minutes using either criterion. When results at 30 minutes are considered, the number of patients with 2005-BDR+ (82%) was higher than that of 2021-BDR+ (75%), with the proportion of SAMA+ patients being higher than that of SABA+ (2005: 70% vs. 49%, Fisher exact Conclusions: Fewer patients show BDR+ according to the 2021 criteria in comparison with the 2005 recommendations, and protocols for BDR testing may consider the assessment of response to both SABA and SAMA after 30 minutes.
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.