Cited by 16Medication Adherence and ComplianceCystic Fibrosis Research AdvancesAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare

The Use of Home Spirometry in Pediatric Cystic Fibrosis Patients: Results of a Feasibility Study

Open access
Shakkottai, Aarti, Nasr, Samya Z.·2017·Global Pediatric Health

Abstract

Medication adherence is poor among pediatric cystic fibrosis (CF) patients, with adolescents having one of the lowest adherence rates. We wanted to identify an adherence intervention that would be acceptable to CF adolescents and assess its feasibility. We surveyed 40 adolescents with CF and asked about barriers to and motivators for their own adherence and to generate ideas for potential adherence interventions. Since most of the respondents chose frequent spirometry at home and medication reminders for interventions, we selected 5 subjects, 10 to 14 years of age, with CF to test the feasibility of home spirometry and medication reminders in pediatric CF patients. This article summarizes the results of both the survey and the feasibility pilot study.

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 · 10.1177/2333794x17690315

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There was insufficient information available to calculate the change from baseline in three trials.

    “There was insufficient information available to calculate the change from baseline in three trials (Knudsen 2016;Quinn 2004;Shakkottai 2017).”

    From Psychological interventions for improving adherence to inhaled therapies in people with cystic fibrosis (2023) · cites this paper as Shakkottai 2017

    For Shakkottai 2017, Table 3 in the Results gives baseline and three-month means for both groups, so mean changes from baseline can be calculated. The paper does not report the standard deviation of those changes, but the citing sentence does not specify that it means a change estimate with its variance. This verdict concerns Shakkottai only, not the other two cited trials. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • For dornase alfa, the review estimated a 0.04 decrease in the intervention group compared to a 0.13 decrease in the control group; for hypertonic saline, the review estimated the increase from baseline as 0.09 in the intervention group compared to a 0.13 drop in the control group (Shakkottai 2017).

    “For dornase alfa, we estimated a 0.04 decrease in the intervention group compared to a 0.13 decrease in the control group; for hypertonic saline, we estimated the increase from baseline as 0.09 in the intervention group compared to a 0.13 drop in the control group (Shakkottai 2017).”

    From Psychological interventions for improving adherence to inhaled therapies in people with cystic fibrosis (2023) · cites this paper as Shakkottai 2017

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • One trial reported all outcomes listed on the clinical trial register in the full trial paper, but the listed trial duration changed from 12 to three months, with no further details provided (Shakkottai 2017).

    “One trial reported all outcomes listed on the clinical trial register in the full trial paper, but the listed trial duration changed from 12 to three months, with no further details provided (Shakkottai 2017).”

    From Psychological interventions for improving adherence to inhaled therapies in people with cystic fibrosis (2023) · cites this paper as Shakkottai 2017

    The Methods and Results describe a registered pilot trial lasting three months and report its outcomes. Our copy does not list the registered outcomes or a 12-month duration, so it cannot establish that all registered outcomes were reported or that the listed duration changed without explanation. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • For Shakkottai 2017, outcome assessors were not blinded because participants were trained by a respiratory therapist who also contacted them weekly.

    “Report states that participants were trained on the proper use of their device at enrollment by a respiratory therapist who also contacted them once a week via telephone to record their lung function result and address any questions about the device, so outcome assessors not blinded.”

    From Psychological interventions for improving adherence to inhaled therapies in people with cystic fibrosis (2023) · cites this paper as Shakkottai 2017

    The Methods section (page unavailable) says a respiratory therapist trained participants and called them weekly to record their PFT results and answer device questions. It does not identify that therapist as the outcome assessor or state whether outcome assessors were blinded; the Methods also describes other outcomes obtained from medical records. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • For Shakkottai 2017, selective reporting was unclear risk because the study was planned for 12 months but intervention duration changed to 3 months with no details.

    “However, this study was planned to be 12 months in duration according to the clinical trial register, but the intervention duration was subsequently changed to 3 months with no details provided.”

    From Psychological interventions for improving adherence to inhaled therapies in people with cystic fibrosis (2023) · cites this paper as Shakkottai 2017

    The Methods state that the home-spirometry intervention lasted three months and that the pilot study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov; the Results also describe a three-month study period. Our copy does not state that the registered plan was 12 months, that the duration changed, or why it changed. It therefore supports the reported duration, but not the claimed discrepancy with the register or the resulting selective-reporting assessment. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shakkottai, A., & Nasr, S. Z.
Affiliations
Michigan Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Nasr, Samya Z.
Venue
Global Pediatric Health
Published
2017-01-01
Volume
4
Pages
2333794X17690315-2333794X17690315
ISSN
2333-794X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2588463362
Cited by
16
References
21
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
FWCI
0.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Global Pediatric Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cystic Fibrosis Research Advances
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Adolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Keywords
cystic fibrosis, home spirometry, medication adherence, adolescents, medication reminders, adherence interventions, barriers and motivators, feasibility, pediatric patients

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