Trial reportAcademic pediatrics
Smart Inhaler Randomized Controlled Trial for Improving Inhaler Technique in Adolescents With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and Asthma.
Trial report in Academic pediatrics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and usability of a real-time feedback smart inhaler for adolescents with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) and asthma; assess preliminary efficacy in improving metered-dose inhaler (MDI) technique; and explore device-measured proficiency and lung function in the full cohort, alongside a predefined autism subgroup analysis.
methodsWe conducted a single-center, single-blind, pilot randomized controlled trial involving 28 adolescents (aged 10-17 years) with IDD and asthma. Participants were randomized 1:1 to an intervention group using smart inhalers with audiovisual feedback for 8 weeks, or a control group receiving standard asthma education. Primary outcomes were parent- and adolescent-reported feasibility, acceptability, and usability. The secondary outcome was observer-rated inhaler proficiency. Exploratory outcomes were full-cohort device-measured inhaler proficiency and lung function (FEV
resultsThe intervention was feasible, acceptable, and usable, yielding high parent and adolescent motivation and satisfaction. The intervention group demonstrated significantly greater improvement in observer-rated Inhaler Proficiency Scale scores from baseline to week 8 compared to the control group (mean difference 1.5 points; 95% CI: 0.4-2.6; P = .02). Exploratory outcomes showed no significant between-group differences in lung function or device-measured proficiency. However, the autism subgroup exhibited inhaler technique improvements consistent with the broader cohort.
conclusionsSmart inhalers are feasible, acceptable, and usable for adolescents with IDD, and are associated with significant improvement in observer-rated inhaler technique when combined with standard clinical education. Given the inherent challenges of spirometry in this population, future studies should incorporate effort-independent clinical assessment measures.
Indexed as
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.