↓ Skip to main content

Effect of inhaled corticosteroid particle size on asthma efficacy and safety outcomes: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pulmonary Medicine, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effect of inhaled corticosteroid particle size on asthma efficacy and safety outcomes: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12890-016-0348-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Céline El Baou, Rachael L. Di Santostefano, Rafael Alfonso-Cristancho, Elizabeth A Suarez, David Stempel, Mark L Everard, Neil Barnes

Abstract

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the primary treatment for persistent asthma. Currently available ICS have differing particle size due to both formulation and propellant, and it has been postulated that this may impact patient outcomes. This structured literature review and meta-analysis compared the effect of small and standard particle size ICS on lung function, symptoms, rescue use (when available) and safety in patients with asthma as assessed in head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A systematic literature search of MEDLINE was performed to identify RCTs (1998-2014) evaluating standard size (fluticasone propionate-containing medications) versus small particle size ICS medication in adults and children with asthma. Efficacy outcomes included forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), morning peak expiratory flow (PEF), symptom scores, % predicted forced expiratory flow between 25 and 75% of forced vital capacity (FEF25-75%), and rescue medication use. Safety outcomes were also evaluated when available. Twenty-three independent trials that met the eligibility criteria were identified. Benefit-risk plots did not demonstrate any clinically meaningful differences across the five efficacy endpoints considered and no appreciable differences were noted for most safety endpoints. Meta-analysis results, using a random-effects model, demonstrated no significant difference between standard and small size particle ICS medications in terms of effects on mean change from baseline FEV1 (L) (-0.011, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.037, 0.014 [N = 3524]), morning PEF (L/min) (medium/low doses: -3.874, 95% CI: -10.915, 3.166 [N = 1911]; high/high-medium doses: 5.551, 95% CI: -1.948, 13.049 [N = 749]) and FEF25-75% predicted (-2.418, 95% CI: -6.400; 1.564 [N = 115]). Based on the available literature, no clinically significant differences in efficacy or safety were observed comparing small and standard particle size ICS medications for the treatment of asthma. GSK Clinical Study Register No: 202012 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 16%
Other 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 21 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 31%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 13%
Engineering 3 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 22 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 February 2017.
All research outputs
#3,315,673
of 24,132,754 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#235
of 2,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,272
of 427,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#11
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,132,754 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,080 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 427,240 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.