ArticleJMIR biomedical engineering2021
Effectiveness of the BreatheSuite Device in Assessing the Technique of Metered-Dose Inhalers: Validation Study.
Article in JMIR biomedical engineering, 2021. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe majority of medications used in treating asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are taken through metered-dose inhalers (MDIs). Studies have reported that most patients demonstrate poor inhaler technique, which has resulted in poor disease control. Digital Health applications have the potential to improve the technique and adherence of inhaled medications.
objectiveThis study aimed to validate the effectiveness of the BreatheSuite MDI device in assessing the technique of taking a dose via an MDI.
methodsThe study was a validation study. Thirty participants who self-reported a diagnosis of asthma or COPD were recruited from community pharmacies in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. Participants used a BreatheSuite MDI device attached to a placebo MDI and resembled taking 3 doses. Pharmacists used a scoring sheet to evaluate the technique of using the MDI. An independent researcher compared the results of the pharmacist's scoring sheet with the results of the BreatheSuite device.
resultsThis study found that the BreatheSuite MDI can objectively detect several errors in the MDI technique. The data recorded by the BreatheSuite MDI device showed that all participants performed at least one error in using the MDI. The BreatheSuite device captured approximately 40% (143/360) more errors compared to observation alone. The distribution of participants who performed errors in MDI steps as recorded by BreatheSuite compared to errors reported by observation alone were as follows: shaking before actuation, 33.3% (30/90) versus 25.5% (23/90); upright orientation of the inhaler during actuation, 66.7% (60/90) versus 18.87% (17/90); coordination (actuating after the start of inhalation), 76.6% (69/90) versus 35.5% (32/90); and duration of inspiration, 96.7% (87/90) versus 34.4% (31/90).
conclusionsThe BreatheSuite MDI can objectively detect several errors in the MDI technique, which were missed by observation alone. It has the potential to enhance treatment outcomes among patients with chronic lung diseases.
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.