ArticleERJ open research2024
Dry-powder inhaler use in primary school-aged children with asthma: a systematic review.
Article in ERJ open research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of different inhaler types for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. a systematic review and meta-analysis.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Inhaler use and their carbon footprint in Germany: a 10-year analysis (2013-2022).BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Article
- Resultant greenhouse gases from the use of inhaled corticosteroid based on Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines: a primary care used case from Singapore.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Asthma is the most common chronic disease among children. Dry-powder inhalers (DPIs) are effective for medication delivery in adults and adolescents, and provide a lower environmental footprint and more portability than a metered dose inhaler (MDI) with a spacer. They require a specific technique, and it is necessary to ascertain whether they can be used in younger age groups. We aimed to assess evidence regarding whether primary school-aged (5-11 years) children can use DPIs with adequate technique during both stable and acute asthma. Design: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PubMed were searched for studies assessing DPI use among children aged 5-11 years with asthma or wheeze. Results of studies were synthesised by study design and outcome measure. Results: 38 studies were identified for analysis. These were analysed in three groups: 1) 25 studies assessing children's ability to use DPIs by peak inspiratory flow measurement, 2) 10 studies assessing children's ability to use DPIs by physician assessment, and 3) three studies measuring the efficacy of DPIs compared with the gold standard (MDI with spacer). Five studies included children during acute exacerbations. Conclusion: The majority of primary school-aged children have the ability to use a DPI with adequate training, support and practice. Some younger children may have difficulties, and clinician assessment and ongoing review is crucial in determining which children are likely to benefit from a DPI. Consistent correct use and adherence remain as challenges, but these are also issues with an MDI plus spacer and do not appear to be significantly worse with DPIs. Evidence of the use of DPIs during acute illness is limited; more studies are required in this setting.
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.