Trial reportAAPS PharmSciTech2024
User-Friendliness Evaluation of Handling pMDI with Various Add-on Devices in Asthmatic Patients.
Trial report in AAPS PharmSciTech, 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.
- Expectations Versus Reality in Inhalation Technique-A Case-Control Study of Inhalation Technique in Patients with Asthma or COPD.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Assessment of Emergency Spacers Versus Traditional Spacers, An In-Vitro Model for Aerosol Delivery.AAPS PharmSciTech · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to assess the use of pMDI alone and pMDI with different spacers in asthmatic patients and to identify any associations between errors in handling the device for the first time and the sessions needed to reach the correct handling method, considering patient demographics and clinical characteristics. A total of 150 Asthmatic patients were crossed over to handle pMDI alone and with add-on inhalable devices (Aerochamber plus, Tips Haler, Able, Dispozable and Aer-8) randomly, without receiving verbal or demonstrative instruction (baseline assessment). The assessment of the inhaler technique was performed using checklists that had been set beforehand. Subsequently, the proper utilization of the inhaler was exhibited, and the patient's inhaler usage was reassessed. The demonstration was repeated until an optimal technique was attained. The number of counselling attempts required to achieve successful management, together with patient demographics and clinical factors, were documented. The mean percentage of total errors at baseline shows that pMDI alone is significantly higher than pMDI attached to add-on devices (53.90 ± 9.71, 32.54 ± 13.93, 24.53 ± 14.93, 21.6 ± 14.48, 25.14 ± 10.99, 27.47 ± 10.28) for pMDI alone, Aerochamber plus, Tips Haler, Able, Dispozable and Aer-8 respectively at p < 0.01. Able and Tips Haler spacers are significantly lower than other spacers with pMDI and pMDI alone in terms of total sessions needed to attain the complete optimal handling technique at p < 0.01. Weak and very weak correlations were observed between the percentage of total errors at baseline and the total sessions with education years, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and age as well as some demographics and clinical variables. Handling pMDI can be challenging however the introduction of spacers simplifies this procedure. Different spacers cannot be treated as a homogeneous group due to variations in handling techniques and ease of use. the Able spacer requires the fewest handling steps of any spacer and has the highest percentage of patients who can use it without assistance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39602024What 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.