Device errors in asthma and COPD: Systematic literature review and meta-analysis

0Citations
Citations of this article
183Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This artice is free to access.

Abstract

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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Chrystyn, H., Van Der Palen, J., Sharma, R., Barnes, N., Delafont, B., Mahajan, A., & Thomas, M. (2017). Device errors in asthma and COPD: Systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine, 27(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41533-017-0016-z

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free