↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of serious inhaler technique errors made by device-naïve patients using three different dry powder inhalers: a randomised, crossover, open-label study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pulmonary Medicine, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 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
Comparison of serious inhaler technique errors made by device-naïve patients using three different dry powder inhalers: a randomised, crossover, open-label study
Published in
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12890-016-0169-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Henry Chrystyn, David B. Price, Mathieu Molimard, John Haughney, Sinthia Bosnic-Anticevich, Federico Lavorini, John Efthimiou, Dawn Shan, Erika Sims, Anne Burden, Catherine Hutton, Nicolas Roche

Abstract

Serious inhaler technique errors can impair drug delivery to the lungs. This randomised, crossover, open-label study evaluated the proportion of patients making predefined serious errors with Pulmojet compared with Diskus and Turbohaler dry powder inhalers. Patients ≥18 years old with asthma and/or COPD who were current users of an inhaler but naïve to the study devices were assigned to inhaler technique assessment on Pulmojet and either Diskus or Turbohaler in a randomised order. Patients inhaled through empty devices after reading the patient information leaflet. If serious errors potentially affecting dose delivery were recorded, they repeated the inhalations after watching a training video. Inhaler technique was assessed by a trained nurse observer and an electronic inhalation profile recorder. Baseline patient characteristics were similar between randomisation arms for the Pulmojet-Diskus (n = 277) and Pulmojet-Turbohaler (n = 144) comparisons. Non-inferiority in the proportions of patients recording no nurse-observed serious errors was demonstrated for both Pulmojet versus Diskus, and Pulmojet versus Turbohaler; therefore, superiority was tested. Patients were significantly less likely to make ≥1 nurse-observed serious errors using Pulmojet compared with Diskus (odds ratio, 0.31; 95 % CI, 0.19-0.51) or Pulmojet compared with Turbohaler (0.23; 0.12-0.44) after reading the patient information leaflet with additional video instruction, if required. These results suggest Pulmojet is easier to learn to use correctly than the Turbohaler or Diskus for current inhaler users switching to a new dry powder inhaler. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01794390 (February 14, 2013).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 102 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 15%
Researcher 14 13%
Student > Master 11 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Other 9 9%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 29 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Chemistry 2 2%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 30 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 21 February 2016.
All research outputs
#18,443,697
of 22,851,489 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#1,382
of 1,920 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#285,898
of 395,740 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#29
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,851,489 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,920 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 395,740 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.