Cargando…
Device errors in asthma and COPD: systematic literature review and meta-analysis
Inhaler device errors are common and may impact the effectiveness of the delivered drug. There is a paucity of up-to-date systematic reviews (SRs) or meta-analyses (MAs) of device errors in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. This SR and MA provides an estimate of overa...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5434773/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28373682 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41533-017-0016-z |
_version_ | 1783237112563236864 |
---|---|
author | Chrystyn, Henry van der Palen, Job Sharma, Raj Barnes, Neil Delafont, Bruno Mahajan, Anadi Thomas, Mike |
author_facet | Chrystyn, Henry van der Palen, Job Sharma, Raj Barnes, Neil Delafont, Bruno Mahajan, Anadi Thomas, Mike |
author_sort | Chrystyn, Henry |
collection | PubMed |
description | Inhaler device errors are common and may impact the effectiveness of the delivered drug. There is a paucity of up-to-date systematic reviews (SRs) or meta-analyses (MAs) of device errors in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. This SR and MA provides an estimate of overall error rates (both critical and non-critical) by device type and evaluates factors associated with inhaler misuse. The following databases from inception to July 23, 2014 (Embase®, MEDLINE®, MEDLINE® In-Process and CENTRAL) were searched, using predefined search terms. Studies in adult males and females with asthma or COPD, reporting at least one overall or critical error, using metered dose inhalers and dry powder inhalers were included. Random-effect MAs were performed to estimate device error rates and to compare pairs of devices. Overall and critical error rates were high across all devices, ranging from 50–100% and 14–92%, respectively. However, between-study heterogeneity was also generally >90% (I-squared statistic), indicating large variability between studies. A trend towards higher error rates with assessments comprising a larger number of steps was observed; however no consistent pattern was identified. This SR and MA highlights the relatively limited body of evidence assessing device errors and the lack of standardised checklists. There is currently insufficient evidence to determine differences in error rates between different inhaler devices and their impact on clinical outcomes. A key step in improving our knowledge on this topic would be the development of standardised checklists for each device. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5434773 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-54347732017-05-19 Device errors in asthma and COPD: systematic literature review and meta-analysis Chrystyn, Henry van der Palen, Job Sharma, Raj Barnes, Neil Delafont, Bruno Mahajan, Anadi Thomas, Mike NPJ Prim Care Respir Med Article Inhaler device errors are common and may impact the effectiveness of the delivered drug. There is a paucity of up-to-date systematic reviews (SRs) or meta-analyses (MAs) of device errors in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. This SR and MA provides an estimate of overall error rates (both critical and non-critical) by device type and evaluates factors associated with inhaler misuse. The following databases from inception to July 23, 2014 (Embase®, MEDLINE®, MEDLINE® In-Process and CENTRAL) were searched, using predefined search terms. Studies in adult males and females with asthma or COPD, reporting at least one overall or critical error, using metered dose inhalers and dry powder inhalers were included. Random-effect MAs were performed to estimate device error rates and to compare pairs of devices. Overall and critical error rates were high across all devices, ranging from 50–100% and 14–92%, respectively. However, between-study heterogeneity was also generally >90% (I-squared statistic), indicating large variability between studies. A trend towards higher error rates with assessments comprising a larger number of steps was observed; however no consistent pattern was identified. This SR and MA highlights the relatively limited body of evidence assessing device errors and the lack of standardised checklists. There is currently insufficient evidence to determine differences in error rates between different inhaler devices and their impact on clinical outcomes. A key step in improving our knowledge on this topic would be the development of standardised checklists for each device. Nature Publishing Group UK 2017-04-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5434773/ /pubmed/28373682 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41533-017-0016-z Text en © The Author(s) 2017 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Article Chrystyn, Henry van der Palen, Job Sharma, Raj Barnes, Neil Delafont, Bruno Mahajan, Anadi Thomas, Mike Device errors in asthma and COPD: systematic literature review and meta-analysis |
title | Device errors in asthma and COPD: systematic literature review and meta-analysis |
title_full | Device errors in asthma and COPD: systematic literature review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Device errors in asthma and COPD: systematic literature review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Device errors in asthma and COPD: systematic literature review and meta-analysis |
title_short | Device errors in asthma and COPD: systematic literature review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | device errors in asthma and copd: systematic literature review and meta-analysis |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5434773/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28373682 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41533-017-0016-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT chrystynhenry deviceerrorsinasthmaandcopdsystematicliteraturereviewandmetaanalysis AT vanderpalenjob deviceerrorsinasthmaandcopdsystematicliteraturereviewandmetaanalysis AT sharmaraj deviceerrorsinasthmaandcopdsystematicliteraturereviewandmetaanalysis AT barnesneil deviceerrorsinasthmaandcopdsystematicliteraturereviewandmetaanalysis AT delafontbruno deviceerrorsinasthmaandcopdsystematicliteraturereviewandmetaanalysis AT mahajananadi deviceerrorsinasthmaandcopdsystematicliteraturereviewandmetaanalysis AT thomasmike deviceerrorsinasthmaandcopdsystematicliteraturereviewandmetaanalysis |