Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 256

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Systemic Effect Comparisons of Six Inhaled Corticosteroid Preparations

Martin, Richard J., Szefler, Stanley J., Chinchilli, Vernon M., Kraft, Monica, Dolovich, Myrna, Boushey, Homer A., Cherniack, Reuben M., Craig, Timothy J., Drazen, Jeffrey M., Fagan, Joanne K., Fahy, John V., Fish, James E., Ford, Jean G., Israel, Elliott, Kunselman, Susan J., Lazarus, Stephen C., Lemanske, Robert F., Peters, Stephen P., Sorkness, Christine A.·2002·American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
DOI 10.1164/rccm.2105013
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The goal of this study was to establish a reliable method to evaluate systemic bioavailability and to determine equisystemic effects (microgram dose producing equal systemic cortisol suppression) of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Steroid naive asthma subjects (n = 156) were enrolled at six centers. A 1-week doubling dose design was used for each of six ICS and matched placebos for a total of four doses. Systemic effect was evaluated by hourly plasma cortisol concentrations (8 P.M. to 8 A.M.), 12- and 24-hour urine cortisol concentrations, and a morning blood osteocalcin. The area under the concentration-time curve for hourly cortisol concentrations was the best outcome variable to assess systemic effect. For the six ICS and matching placebos (beclomethasone-chlorofluorocarbon [CFC], budesonide dry powder inhaler [DPI], fluticasone DPI, fluticasone-CFC metered dose inhaler [MDI], flunisolide-CFC, and triamcinolone-CFC), only the placebo group and fluticasone DPI did not demonstrate a significant dose-response effect. Thus microgram comparison of all ICS could only be performed at a 10% cortisol suppression: flunisolide-CFC - 936; triamcinolone-CFC - 787; beclomethasone-CFC - 548; fluticasone DPI - 445; budesonide DPI - 268; fluticasone-CFC MDI - 111. This study represents the first step in evaluation of ICS efficacy based on equisystemic (cortisol suppression) effects of a given ICS, rather than doses judged arbitrarily to be comparable on a microgram basis.

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 · 10.1164/rccm.2105013

Cites

26 of 26 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 26 references

Cited by

See all 256

Metadata

Authors
Martin, R. J., Szefler, S. J., Chinchilli, V. M., Kraft, M., Dolovich, M., Boushey, H. A., Cherniack, R. M., Craig, T. J., Drazen, J. M., Fagan, J. K., Fahy, J. V., Fish, J. E., Ford, J. G., Israel, E., Kunselman, S. J., Lazarus, S. C., Lemanske, R. F., Peters, S. P., & Sorkness, C. A.
Venue
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2002-05-15
Volume
165
Issue
10
Pages
1377-1383
ISSN
  • 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-4970
DOI
10.1164/rccm.2105013
OpenAlex
W2109428979
Cited by
256
References
26
FWCI
17.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Systemic Effect Comparisons of Six Inhaled Corticosteroid Preparations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/rccm.2105013
The paper
Martin, R. J., Szefler, S. J., Chinchilli, V. M., Kraft, M., Dolovich, M., Boushey, H. A., Cherniack, R. M., Craig, T. J., Drazen, J. M., Fagan, J. K., Fahy, J. V., Fish, J. E., Ford, J. G., Israel, E., Kunselman, S. J., Lazarus, S. C., Lemanske, R. F., Peters, S. P., & Sorkness, C. A. (2002). Systemic Effect Comparisons of Six Inhaled Corticosteroid Preparations. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.2105013

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.