ArticleTuberculosis and respiratory diseases2024
Inappropriate Peak Inspiratory Flow Rate in the Patients with Stable Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Korea.
Article in Tuberculosis and respiratory diseases, 2024. 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.
- Risk Factors for Progression to Frequent Exacerbators in Stable Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.Tuberculosis and respiratory diseases · 2026Article
- Development of a Scoring System to Predict Suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Observational
- Predictors of Suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow in Patients with Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Clinical Practice.Tuberculosis and respiratory diseases · 2025Article
- Maximal Forced Inspiratory Flow Dynamics and Acute Exacerbation in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients with Exacerbation History.Tuberculosis and respiratory diseases · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile inhalation therapy efficacy hinges on attaining proper peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR), the prevalence of inappropriate PIFR among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains unstudied in Korea. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of inappropriate PIFR, its correlation with COPD assessment test (CAT) scores, and factors associated with suboptimal PIFR.
methodsWe enrolled 108 patients with COPD who had been using the same inhaler for at least 1 year without exacerbations. PIFR was measured using an inspiratory flow meter (In-Check DIAL G16). Demographic, clinical, pulmonary function, and CAT score data were collected. Inappropriate was defined as PIFR <60 L/min for dry power inhaler (DPI) users, and >90 L/min for aerosol device users.
resultsThe cohort comprised 87 (80.6%) men, mean age 71.0±8.5 years, with mean post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second of 69.1%±1.8% predicted. Twenty-nine (26.9%) used aerosol devices only, 76 (70.4%) used DPIs only, and three (2.8%) used both. Inappropriate PIFRs were found in 17.2% of aerosol device users, and 42.1% of DPI users. CAT scores were significantly higher in the inappropriate PIFR group than in the appropriate PIFR group (11.2±7.7 vs. 7.5±4.9, p=0.003). In DPI users, female, shorter height, lower body weight and maximal voluntary ventilation (MVV) were associated with inappropriate PIFR.
conclusionThe prevalence of inappropriate PIFR among patients with COPD is 17.2% for aerosol device users, and 42.1% for DPI users. Suboptimal PIFR correlates with female gender, shorter stature, lower weight and MVV in DPI users.
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.