The DOI matches its Crossref record.
An evaluation of salmeterol in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
Open accessAbstract
The objectives of this study were to compare the efficacy and safety of salmeterol xinafoate (50 and 100 microg b.i.d.) with that of placebo, when added to existing therapy, in the treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Six hundred and seventy four patients were randomized to receive either salmeterol 50 microg b.i.d., salmeterol 100 microg b.i.d., or placebo treatment for a period of 16 weeks. The results showed a significant improvement in daily symptom scores noted for patients taking either 50 microg (p=0.043) or 100 microg b.i.d. salmeterol (p=0.01) compared with placebo, with a corresponding decrease in additional daytime salbutamol requirements for both salmeterol groups. The same pattern was reflected for night-time symptoms and additional salbutamol use. During treatment, forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) measurements improved significantly in each salmeterol group, with up to a 7% improvement observed at the end of the study. Although no difference was observed between treatment groups for the distance walked in 6 min, patients treated with salmeterol 50 microg b.i.d. were significantly less breathless than those treated with placebo after their 6 min walk, after 8 weeks (p=0.024) and 16 weeks (p=0.004) of therapy. Adverse events were similar in all three groups except for tremor, which was significantly higher in the 100 microg b.i.d. salmeterol group (p=0.005) compared both with 50 microg b.i.d. salmeterol and placebo. Salmeterol offered further positive improvement to the effect of therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease when added to their existing regimens. This clinical improvement was similar both with 50 and 100 microg b.i.d. dosage, although the group receiving 50 microg b.i.d. tolerated the drug better than those receiving 100 microg b.i.d. salmeterol.
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
Cited by
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Barnes, P. J. (2000) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200007273430407 · Cited by 1,078
Szafranski, W., Cukier, A., Ramirez, A., Menga, G., Sansores, R., Nahabedian, S., Peterson, S., & Olsson, H. (2003) · European Respiratory Journal · doi:10.1183/09031936.03.00031402 · Cited by 887
Effects of tiotropium on lung hyperinflation, dyspnoea and exercise tolerance in COPD
O'Donnell, D. E., Flüge, T., Gerken, F., Hamilton, A., Webb, K., Aguilaniu, B., Make, B., & Magnussen, H. (2004) · European Respiratory Journal · doi:10.1183/09031936.04.00116004 · Cited by 859
Paggiaro, P. L., Dahle, R., Bakran, I., Frith, L., Hollingworth, K., & Efthimiou, J. (1998) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(97)03471-5 · Cited by 508
O'Donnell, D. E., Voduc, N., Fitzpatrick, M., & Webb, K. A. (2004) · European Respiratory Journal · doi:10.1183/09031936.04.00072703 · Cited by 365
Metadata
- Authors
- Boyd, G., Morice, A., Pounsford, J., Siebert, M., Peslis, N., & Crawford, C.
- Venue
- European Respiratory Journal
- Publisher
- European Respiratory Society (ERS)
- Published
- 1997-04-01
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 815-821
- ISSN
- 0903-1936 (ISSN-L)
- 1399-3003
- OpenAlex
- W2160431793
- Cited by
- 269
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: An evaluation of salmeterol in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1183/09031936.97.10040815
- The paper
- Boyd, G., Morice, A., Pounsford, J., Siebert, M., Peslis, N., & Crawford, C. (1997). An evaluation of salmeterol in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). European Respiratory Journal. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.97.10040815
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.