Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39655170›Full record

ArticleERJ open research2024

Dry-powder inhaler use in primary school-aged children with asthma: a systematic review.

Stephanie L Kuek, Nicole X Wong, Stuart Dalziel, Lee Hatter, Louise Fleming, Andrew Bush, Richard Beasley, Shivanthan Shanthikumar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Stephanie L KuekRespiratory and Sleep Medicine, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8691-7597
Nicole X WongGeneral Paediatrics, Monash Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9784-0038
Stuart DalzielStarship Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand.
Lee HatterMedical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2062-7225
Louise FlemingNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7268-7433
Andrew BushNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Richard BeasleyMedical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0337-406X
Shivanthan ShanthikumarRespiratory and Sleep Medicine, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6000-3180

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID39655170
PMCPMC11626612

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.