77 Inhalers for COPD have a measurable effect but do they really work?
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
<h3></h3> Currently more than 20 inhalers are approved for the management of COPD and marketed in North America. About half are single medication inhalers and half are combination medication inhalers. This abundance of inhalers leaves many clinicians and patients confused and wondering which inhaler, if any, to add and how to make that decision. When making decisions about inhalers, clinicians should focus on the best available evidence around outcomes which are clinically relevant to patients. Although clinical trials may show statistically significant differences on clinically relevant outcomes, this doesn’t necessarily mean the magnitude of these differences would be considered clinically meaningful to an individual patient or clinician. To practice in an evidence-based fashion clinicians need to have an understanding of the ballpark chance an individual patient will get a clinically meaningful effect from any specific inhaler and, if possible identify if, in fact, a specific patient is getting a clinically important effect on their symptoms from a specific inhaler once it has been started. As of late 2018, multiple meta-analyses have been published outlining benefits and harms of triple therapy (LAMA/LABA/ICS) versus dual therapy (LAMA/LABA) in the management of COPD. In this session, using these meta-analyses and their individual clinical trial data, we’ll take an in-depth look at the magnitude of the benefits and harms attributed to these inhalers and the potential ways to use this evidence clinically. Through the use of absolute risk differences, changes in dyspnea and quality of life scores, minimum clinically important differences, and responder analyses, we’ll walk through how meta-analysis and individual trial outcomes data can be translated into usable presentations of the potential positive and negative impacts inhalers have on clinically relevant COPD outcomes. In addition we’ll address how this evidence can be used to clinically monitor patients once they are on inhalers for COPD. Appreciating the challenges of applying often relatively small clinical outcome changes that inhalers provide to decision making in a condition that has a relatively larger fluctuating and dynamic symptomatology, participants will consider the pros and cons of several approaches to the clinical monitoring of patients with COPD. <h3>Objectives</h3> Understand the importance of the clinical relevance of COPD outcomes in individual patient decisions. Integrate the use of clinical outcome data into translatable information for shared decision making. Appreciate and work within the challenges of how to apply clinical outcome data in a condition that is consistently fluctuating.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle