Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40102397›Full record

SynthesisNPJ primary care respiratory medicine2025

Inhalation technique-related errors after education among asthma and COPD patients using different types of inhalers - systematic review and meta-analysis.

Monika Marko, Rafał Pawliczak

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in NPJ primary care respiratory medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Rethinking asthma therapy, part 1: transdermal delivery of βJournal of pharmacy & pharmaceutical sciences : a publication of the Canadian Society for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Societe canadienne des sciences pharmaceutiques · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. NEXThalerJournal of clinical medicine · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

2 authors.

Monika MarkoDepartment of Immunopathology, Faculty of Medicine, Division of Biomedical Science, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3596-6625
Rafał PawliczakDepartment of Immunopathology, Faculty of Medicine, Division of Biomedical Science, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland. rafal.pawliczak@csk.umed.lodz.pl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6784-453X

Funding

Uniwersytet Medyczny w Lodzi 503/0-149-03/503-01-001-19-00
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) incorrect use of inhalers is still common. The aim of the study was to detect whether education improves inhalation skills and whether the type of education influenced the educational effect depending on the device. A systematic review and meta-analysis for errors during inhalation before and after education was performed. The selected data allowed for education assessment of dry powder (DPIs) and pressurised metered dose (pMDI/MDIs) inhalers in a meta-analysis. Education reduced critical errors (risk ratio [RR], 0.28, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.17, 0.47, P < 0.00001) and any incorrect use events for DPI (RR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.21, 0.70, P = 0.002) and pMDI/MDIs, (RR = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.23, P < 0.00001). Education improves patient's inhalation skills regardless of the device. The educational effect for pMDI/MDIs depends on the type of educational approach which has not been demonstrated for DPIs.

Indexed as

AsthmaNebulizers and VaporizersPatient Education as TopicPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveAdministration, InhalationDry Powder InhalersHumansMetered Dose Inhalers

Identifiers

PMID40102397
PMCPMC11920170

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.