Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41698939›Full record

SynthesisNPJ primary care respiratory medicine2026

Efficacy and safety of different inhaler types for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Michael J Loftus, Miranda S Cumpston, Shannon Barnes, John Blakey, Allan Glanville, Steve McDonald, Loyal Pattuwage, Megan Rees, Rachel Silk, Heath White and 2 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in NPJ primary care respiratory medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Michael J Loftus *Planetary Health Division, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. michael.loftus@monash.edu.
Miranda S Cumpston *Australian Living Evidence Collaboration, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Shannon BarnesAustralian Living Evidence Collaboration, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
John BlakeyRespiratory Department, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Australia.
Allan GlanvilleMacquarie Respiratory and Sleep Unit, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Steve McDonaldAustralian Living Evidence Collaboration, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Loyal PattuwageAustralian Living Evidence Collaboration, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Megan ReesDepartment of Respiratory and Sleep Disorders Medicine, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Rachel SilkAustralian Living Evidence Collaboration, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Heath WhiteAustralian Living Evidence Collaboration, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Tari TurnerAustralian Living Evidence Collaboration, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Karin LederPlanetary Health Division, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pressurised metered dose inhalers (pMDIs) contain propellant gases with high global warming potential yet remain a cornerstone of management for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The aim of this study was to determine whether non-propellant alternatives of dry powder inhalers (DPIs) and soft mist inhalers (SMIs) had similar efficacy and safety. A systematic review was performed finding 44 randomised trials (24,710 participants) and moderate certainty evidence for most outcomes. No statistically significant or clinically important differences were found between inhaler types for any assessed measure. For asthma maintenance, the mean difference in peak expiratory flow rate between groups was 1.07 L/min (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.93 to 3.06). For COPD, the mean difference in FEV

Indexed as

AsthmaBronchodilator AgentsNebulizers and VaporizersPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveAdministration, InhalationDry Powder InhalersHumansMetered Dose InhalersRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicBronchodilator Agents

Identifiers

PMID41698939
PMCPMC13022311

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.