Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Inhaler use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients: a meta-analysis† Cover

Inhaler use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients: a meta-analysis†

Frontiers of Nursing
Volume 9 (2022): Issue 4 (December 2022)
By: ,  ,  ,  ,  ,   and    
Open Access
|Dec 2022
Read online
Figures & tables

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Literature search and selection.

Table 1.

Clinical characteristics of included trials.

Inclusion of studiesType of studyCountryPercentage of women (%)Age (years) mean (+SD/range)Total number of people (n)Type of inhaler used
Loukil et al16CohortSpanish48.247.4 ± 16.354DPI
Gillissen et al.17CohortGermany44.665.6 ± 11.61236DPI
Lin et al18CohortChina36.867 ± 15136DPI, MDI
Li et al.19CohortChina33.164 (47–81)384DPI
Takaku et al.20CohortJapan9.072 ± 781MDI, DPI
Ngo et al21Cross-sectionalVietnam7.068.6 ± 8.770MDI, DPI, SMI
Bournival et al.22Cross-sectionalCanada49.069.8 ± 8.398DPI, SMI
Al Ammari et al.23Cross-sectionalSaudi Arabia48.958.4 ± 17.940MDI
Castel-Branco et al.24Cross-SectionalPortugal49.365.4 ± 18.3895DPI, MDI, SMI
Pothirat et al.8Cross-sectionalThailand35.971.2 ± 9.2103DPI, MDI, SMI
Ding et al.25Cross-sectionalAmerica48.0Men: 59.8 ± 10.2; Women: 60.7 ± 7.861MDI, SMI
Press et al.26Cross-SectionalAmerica58.659.229MDI
Oliveira et al.27RCTBrazil44.063.5 ± 8.2140DPI, SMI

1 Note: DPI, dry powder inhaler; MDI, metered dose inhaler; SMI, soft mist inhaler; ROC, randomised clinical trail.

Table 2.

Results of risk of bias evaluation of the included literature by NOS score.

Inclusion of studiesStudy population selectionComparability of resultsEvaluation of outcomes
Loukil et al.16*******
Gillissen et al.17********
Lin et al.18******
Li et al.19*******
Takaku et al.20*******

1 Note: NOS, Newcastle–Ottawa quality scale.

Table 3.

Results of the JBI cross-sectional survey bias risk assessment.

Inclusion in the studyRationale for the titlePopulation selectionExclusion criteriaSample characteristicsInstrument reliability and validity testsVeracityEthical principlesStatistical methods StudyStudy resultsStudy valueTotal score
Ngo et al.21②①②①①②②②②②17
Bournival et al.22②①①①NA②①②②②14
Al Ammari et al.23②①①①NA②②②②②15
Castel-Branco et al.24②①①①NA②②②②②15
Pothirat et al.8②①①①NA②②②②②15
Ding et al.25②①①①NA②NA②②②13
Press et al.26②①①①①②②②②②16

1 Note: “②” is 2 marks for a detailed and comprehensive description; “①” is 1 mark for mentioning but not describing in detail; “NA” is 0 mark for not meeting the requirements.

Figure 2.

Results of risk bias evaluation of randomized controlled studies.

Figure 3.

Forest plots of error rates for at least 1 inhaler.

Figure 4.

A cross-sectional forest map of the error rates of different inhalants.

Figure 5.

Forest plot of error rates for use. Abbreviation: DPI, dry powder inhaler.

Figure 6.

Forest plot of error rates for quantified inhaler use.

Figure 7.

Forest plot of errors in SMI use. Abbreviation: SMI, soft mist inhalers.

Figure 8.

Funnel plot of at least 1 inhaler error made.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/fon-2022-0044 | Journal eISSN: 2544-8994 | Journal ISSN: 2097-5368
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 343 - 352
Submitted on: Apr 3, 2022
Accepted on: Aug 31, 2022
Published online: Dec 31, 2022
Published in print: Dec 20, 2022
Published by: Shanxi Medical Periodical Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Keywords:
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,
inhaler handling errors,
inhaler technique,
medications,
meta-analysis
Related subjects:
Medicine,
Assistive professions, nursing

© 2022 Li-Juan Zhou, Xian-Xiu Wen, Rong Jiang, Huang-Yuan Zhou, Yan Li, Xiao-Rang Mao, Mei Lan, published by Shanxi Medical Periodical Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 9 (2022): Issue 4 (December 2022)
Next article