↓ Skip to main content

Critical inhaler errors in asthma and COPD: a systematic review of impact on health outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Respiratory Research, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#29 of 1,864)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
60 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Critical inhaler errors in asthma and COPD: a systematic review of impact on health outcomes
Published in
Respiratory Research, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12931-017-0710-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Omar Sharif Usmani, Federico Lavorini, Jonathan Marshall, William Christopher Nigel Dunlop, Louise Heron, Emily Farrington, Richard Dekhuijzen

Abstract

Inhaled drug delivery is the cornerstone treatment for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, use of inhaler devices can be challenging, potentially leading to critical errors in handling that can significantly reduce drug delivery to the lungs and effectiveness of treatment. A systematic review was conducted to define 'critical' errors and their impact on health outcomes and resource use between 2004 and 2016, using key search terms for inhaler errors in asthma and COPD (Search-1) and associated health-economic and patient burden (Search-2). Search-1 identified 62 manuscripts, 47 abstracts, and 5 conference proceedings (n = 114 total). Search-2 identified 9 studies. We observed 299 descriptions of critical error. Age, education status, previous inhaler instruction, comorbidities and socioeconomic status were associated with worse handling error frequency. A significant association was found between inhaler errors and poor disease outcomes (exacerbations), and greater health-economic burden. We have shown wide variations in how critical errors are defined, and the evidence shows an important association between inhaler errors and worsened health outcomes. Given the negative impact diminished disease outcomes impose on resource use, our findings highlight the importance of achieving optimal inhaler technique, and a need for a consensus on defining critical and non-critical errors.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 60 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 140 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 27 19%
Student > Master 15 11%
Other 14 10%
Researcher 13 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 37 26%
Unknown 24 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 18 13%
Unspecified 3 2%
Engineering 2 1%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 35 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 November 2018.
All research outputs
#561,518
of 14,995,047 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#29
of 1,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,336
of 360,716 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#1
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,995,047 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,864 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 360,716 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.