Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 368

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Choosing the best research design for each question: It's time to stop squabbling over the “best” methods

Open access
Sackett, David L, Wennberg, John E·1997·BMJ

Abstract

Background: Poor adherence is a key factor in poor asthma control. A connected inhaler system (CIS) comprising sensors on inhalers, a patient-facing app, and a Healthcare Professional (HCP) dashboard could improve asthma management by improving adherence. Methods: Study 207040 (NCT033800429) is one of the first to investigate the different elements of a CIS in improving adherence. The study had a 24-week, open-label, randomised, multi-centre, parallel group design with 5 treatment arms, in uncontrolled asthmatic patients [Asthma Control Test (ACT) <20] on fixed dose ICS/LABA maintenance therapy. All participants (n=437) received fluticasone furoate/vilanterol Ellipta DPI maintenance therapy, and salbutamol MDI rescue therapy with Propeller Health® sensors attached. Participants were randomised to one of 5 treatment arms: data on (1) maintenance use to participant and HCP; (2) maintenance use to participant; (3) maintenance and rescue use to participant and HCP; (4) maintenance and rescue use to participant; or (5) no data to participant or HCP (control arm). Results: The primary endpoint was the effect of 6 months’ use of a CIS on adherence to maintenance therapy assessed over months 4-6, with the absolute adjusted mean adherence difference in arm 1 (data on maintenance to participant and HCP; 82.0%) being 13.2% (95% CI [6.3%, 20.0%]; p<0.001) greater than arm 5 (control; 68.8%). For arms 2, 3 and 4 the adjusted mean differences were 9.0%, 9.8% and 8.9% respectively versus arm 5 (all statistically significant at the 5% level). Conclusion: The study demonstrates that a CIS can improve adherence to maintenance medication for patients with uncontrolled asthma. Funding: GlaxoSmithKline plc. (207040)

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.315.7123.1636

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 368

Metadata

Authors
Sackett, D. L., & Wennberg, J. E.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1997-12-20
Volume
315
Issue
7123
Pages
1636
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2043699711
Cited by
368
References
1
FWCI
15.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green
Licence
www.bmj.com/company/legal-information/terms-conditions/legal-information/tdm-licencepolicy (tdm)

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: Choosing the best research design for each question: It's time to stop squabbling over the “best” methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.315.7123.1636
The paper
Sackett, D. L., & Wennberg, J. E. (1997). Choosing the best research design for each question: It's time to stop squabbling over the “best” methods. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7123.1636

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.