The DOI matches its Crossref record; 63 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of the effectiveness of inhaler devices in asthma and chronic obstructive airways disease: a systematic review of the literature
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are common diseases of the airways and lungs that have a major impact on the health of the population. The mainstay of treatment is by inhalation of medication to the site of the disease process. This can be achieved by a number of different device types, which have wide variations in costs to the health service. A number of different inhalation devices are available. The pressurised metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) is the most commonly used and cheapest device, which may also be used in conjunction with a spacer device. Newer chlorofluorocarbons (CFC)-free inhaler devices using hydrofluoroalkanes (HFAs) have also been developed. The drug is dissolved or suspended in the propellant under pressure. When activated, a valve system releases a metered volume of drug and propellant. Other devices include breath-actuated pMDIs (BA-pMDI), such as Autohaler and Easi-Breathe. They incorporate a mechanism activated during inhalation that triggers the metered-dose inhaler. Dry powder inhalers (DPI), such as Turbohaler, Diskhaler, Accuhaler and Rotahaler, are activated by inspiration by the patient. The powdered drug is dispersed into particles by the inspiration. With nebulisers oxygen, compressed air, or ultrasonic power is used to break up solutions or suspensions of medication into droplets for inhalation. The aerosol is administered by mask or by a mouthpiece. There has been no previous systematic review of the evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these different inhaler devices. OBJECTIVES: To review systematically the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of inhaler devices in asthma and COPD. METHODS: The different aspects of inhaler devices were separated into the most clinically relevant comparisons. Methods involved systematic searching of electronic databases and bibliographies for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews. Pharmaceutical companies and experts in the field were contacted for further information. Trials that met the inclusion criteria were appraised and data extraction was under-taken by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer, with any discrepancies being resolved through agreement. RESULTS--IN VITRO CHARACTERISTICS VERSUS IN VIVO TESTING AND CLINICAL RESPONSE: There is evidence that when comparative testing is performed on inhaler devices using the same methods, there is some correlation between particle size measurements and clinical response. However, the measurements are dependent upon the methods used, and a single measure of a device in isolation is of limited value. Also, there is little data on comparing devices of different types. There is currently insufficient data to verify the ability of in vitro assessments to predict inhaler performance in vivo. RESULTS--EFFECTIVENESS OF METERED-DOSE INHALERS FOR THE DELIVERY OF CORTICOSTEROIDS IN ASTHMA: The review of three trials in children and 21 trials in adults demonstrated no evidence to suggest clinical benefits of any other inhaler device over a pMDI in corticosteroid delivery. RESULTS--EFFECTIVENESS OF METERED-DOSE INHALERS FOR THE DELIVERY OF BETA-AGONISTS IN STABLE ASTHMA: In children, 11 studies were reviewed, of which seven compared the Turbohaler with the pMDI. One study found a significant treatment difference in peak expiratory flow rate, although there were differences in the patients' baseline characteristics. In adults, a review of 70 studies found no demonstrable difference in the clinical bronchodilator effect of short-acting b2-agonists delivered by the standard pMDI compared with that produced by any other DPI, HFA-pMDI or the Autohaler device. The finding that HFA-pMDIs may reduce treatment failure and oral steroid requirement in beta-agonist delivery needs further confirmatory research in adequately randomised clinical trials. RESULTS--EFFECTIVENESS OF NEBULISERS VERSUS METERED-DOSE INHALERS FOR THE DELIVERY OF BRONCHODILATORS IN STABLE ASTHMA: In children, three included trials compared different devices with a nebuliser and demonstrated no evidence of clinical superiority of nebulisers over inhaler devices in bronchodilator delivery. A total of 23 studies in adults found no equivalence for the main pulmonary outcomes and no evidence of difference in other outcomes. RESULTS--EFFECTIVENESS OF METERED-DOSE INHALERS FOR THE DELIVERY OF BETA-AGONISTS IN COPD: Only two studies were included in this review. No evidence of clinical difference was found in beta-agonist delivery. RESULTS--EFFECTIVENESS OF NEBULISERS VERSUS METERED-DOSE INHALERS FOR THE DELIVERY OF BRONCHODILATORS IN COPD: Evidence from 14 trials demonstrated equivalence for the main outcomes of pulmonary function. For other outcomes there was no evidence of treatment difference in bronchodilator delivery. RESULTS--PATIENTS' ABILITY TO USE METERED-DOSE INHALERS: Differences among studies and the heterogeneity of the results make it difficult to
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
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?
Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J. M., Gavaghan, D. J., & McQuay, H. J. (1996) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4 · Cited by 17,582
Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials: The CONSORT Statement
Begg, C. (1996) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540080059030 · Cited by 3,127
(2005) · Integrative Oncology · doi:10.1201/9780203088319-19 · Cited by 1,579
Self-management education and regular practitioner review for adults with asthma
Gibson, P. G., Powell, H., Wilson, A., Abramson, M. J., Haywood, P., Bauman, A., Hensley, M. J., Walters, E. H., & Roberts, J. J. (2002) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001117 · Cited by 1,377
Regular inhaled beta-agonist treatment in bronchial asthma
Sears, M. R., Taylor, D. R., Print, C. G., Lake, D. C., Li, Q., Flannery, E. M., Yates, D. M., Lucas, M. K., & Herbison, G. P. (1990) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/0140-6736(90)93098-a · Cited by 1,065
(1996) · European Respiratory Journal · doi:10.1183/09031936.96.09040687 · Cited by 1,002
Comparison of Regularly Scheduled with As-Needed Use of Albuterol in Mild Asthma
Drazen, J. M., Israel, E., Boushey, H. A., Chinchilli, V. M., Fahy, J. V., Fish, J. E., Lazarus, S. C., Lemanske, R. F., Martin, R. J., Peters, S. P., et al. (1996) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199609193351202 · Cited by 347
A controlled trial of two forms of self-management education for adults with asthma
Wilson, S. R., Scamagas, P., German, D. F., Hughes, G. W., Lulla, S., Coss, S., Chardon, L., Thomas, R. G., Starr-Schneidkraut, N., Stancavage, F. B., et al. (1993) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/0002-9343(93)90206-5 · Cited by 327
Busse, W. W., Brazinsky, S., Jacobson, K., Stricker, W., Schmitt, K., Vanden Burgt, J., Donnell, D., Hannon, S., & Colice, G. L. (1999) · Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · doi:10.1016/s0091-6749(99)70016-3 · Cited by 260
van Beerendonk, I., Mesters, I., Mudde, A. N., & Tan, T. D. (1998) · Journal of Asthma · doi:10.3109/02770909809068218 · Cited by 211
Cited by
Hobart, J., & Cano, S. (2009) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta13120 · Cited by 621
Price, D., Fletcher, M., & van der Molen, T. (2014) · npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine · doi:10.1038/npjpcrm.2014.9 · Cited by 554
Evaluation of diagnostic tests when there is no gold standard. A review of methods
Rutjes, A., Reitsma, J., Coomarasamy, A., Khan, K., & Bossuyt, P. (2007) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta11500 · Cited by 524
Moher, D., Pham, B., Lawson, M., & Klassen, T. (2003) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta7410 · Cited by 500
Medication adherence issues in patients treated for COPD
Restrepo, R. (2008) · International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease · doi:10.2147/copd.s3036 · Cited by 407
Metadata
- Authors
- Brocklebank, D., Ram, F., Wright, J., Barry, P., Cates, C., Davies, L., Douglas, G., Muers, M., Smith, D., & White, J.
- Venue
- Health Technology Assessment
- Published
- 2001
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 26
- Pages
- 1-149
- ISSN
- 1366-5278 (ISSN-L)
- 2046-4924
- OpenAlex
- W2153308144
- Cited by
- 401
- References
- 63
- FWCI
- 1.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
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: Comparison of the effectiveness of inhaler devices in asthma and chronic obstructive airways disease: a systematic review of the literature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3310/hta5260
- The paper
- Brocklebank, D., Ram, F., Wright, J., Barry, P., Cates, C., Davies, L., Douglas, G., Muers, M., Smith, D., & White, J. (2001). Comparison of the effectiveness of inhaler devices in asthma and chronic obstructive airways disease: a systematic review of the literature. Health Technology Assessment. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta5260
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.