The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Systematic Review of Errors in Inhaler Use
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Problems with the use of inhalers by patients were noted shortly after the launch of the metered-dose inhaler (MDI) and persist today. We aimed to assess the most common errors in inhaler use over the past 40 years in patients treated with MDIs or dry powder inhalers (DPIs). METHODS: A systematic search for articles reporting direct observation of inhaler technique by trained personnel covered the period from 1975 to 2014. Outcomes were the nature and frequencies of the three most common errors; the percentage of patients demonstrating correct, acceptable, or poor technique; and variations in these outcomes over these 40 years and when partitioned into years 1 to 20 and years 21 to 40. Analyses were conducted in accordance with recommendations from Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology. RESULTS: Data were extracted from 144 articles reporting on a total number of 54,354 subjects performing 59,584 observed tests of technique. The most frequent MDI errors were in coordination (45%; 95% CI, 41%-49%), speed and/or depth of inspiration (44%; 40%-47%), and no postinhalation breath-hold (46%; 42%-49%). Frequent DPI errors were incorrect preparation in 29% (26%-33%), no full expiration before inhalation in 46% (42%-50%), and no postinhalation breath-hold in 37% (33%-40%). The overall prevalence of correct technique was 31% (28%-35%); of acceptable, 41% (36%-47%); and of poor, 31% (27%-36%). There were no significant differences between the first and second 20-year periods of scrutiny. CONCLUSIONS: Incorrect inhaler technique is unacceptably frequent and has not improved over the past 40 years, pointing to an urgent need for new approaches to education and drug delivery.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., Vandenbroucke, J. P., & Initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296 · Cited by 23,020
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136 · Cited by 10,349
Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews
Buscemi, N., Hartling, L., Vandermeer, B., Tjosvold, L., & Klassen, T. P. (2006) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.11.010 · Cited by 464 · cited 4×
“Exhale and seal chamber outlet with lips 34 (20-50) Child (n 1⁄4 8) 21 (8-38)”
BackgroundInfluentialWalia, M., Paul, L., Satyavani, A., Lodha, R., Kalaivani, M., & Kabra, S. K. (2006) · Pediatric Pulmonology · doi:10.1002/ppul.20498 · Cited by 51
Cited by
Drug Delivery to the lungs: Challenges and Opportunities
Newman, S. P. (2017) · Therapeutic Delivery · doi:10.4155/tde-2017-0037 · Cited by 328
Digital technologies and adherence in respiratory diseases: the road ahead
Blakey, J. D., Bender, B. G., Dima, A. L., Weinman, J., Safioti, G., & Costello, R. W. (2018) · European Respiratory Journal · doi:10.1183/13993003.01147-2018 · Cited by 136
Metadata
- Authors
- Sanchis, J., Gich, I., & Pedersen, S.
- Venue
- CHEST
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-08
- Volume
- 150
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 394-406
- ISSN
- 0012-3692 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2313458055
- Cited by
- 538
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 12.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Systematic Review of Errors in Inhaler Use. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.chest.2016.03.041
- The paper
- Sanchis, J., Gich, I., & Pedersen, S. (2016). Systematic Review of Errors in Inhaler Use. CHEST. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2016.03.041
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.