MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409972906 · doi:10.1016/j.jaip.2025.04.039

Patient-Facing Digital Inhalers for Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4409972906 on OpenAlexaff
Leonardo Ologundudu, Daniel Rayner, John Oppenheimer, Kaharu Sumino, Flavia Hoyte, Katherine Rivera-Spoljaric, Tamara T. Perry, Sharmilee M. Nyenhuis, Bradley E. Chipps, Elliot Israel, Lindsay Shade, Valerie G. Press, Susana Rangel, Gordon H Guyatt, Ellen McCabe, Paul M. O’Byrne, Lisa Hall, H. C. Orr, Dia Sue-Wah-Sing, Angel Melendez, Tonya Winders, Donna D. Gardner, Matthew A. Rank, Leonard B. Bacharier, Giselle Mosnaim, Derek K. Chu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology In Practice · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInhalation and Respiratory Drug Delivery
Canadian institutionsImpactWestern UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonHIV Legal NetworkMcMaster UniversityOntario Clinical Oncology Group
FundersAmerican Academy of Allergy Asthma and ImmunologyAmerican College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisAsthmaMEDLINESystematic reviewIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The benefits and harms of patient-facing digital inhalers (inhalers with a sensor providing patients immediate feedback on adherence and technique) for asthma remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: To systematically synthesize treatment outcomes of patient-facing digital inhalers for asthma. METHODS: As part of developing upcoming American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters severe and difficult-to-control asthma guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS), and monitored for additional studies to April 1, 2025, for randomized controlled trials evaluating patient-facing digital inhalers in asthma. Paired reviewers independently screened records and extracted data. Individual patient-level data in random effects analysis of covariance models addressed asthma control and asthma-related quality of life. Random-effects meta-analyses addressed severe exacerbations and harms. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach to assess certainty of evidence (PROSPERO CRD42024525051). RESULTS: Twelve trials enrolled 2,483 children (aged 4-17 y) and adults with asthma. Patient-facing digital inhalers probably improve asthma control (Asthma Control Test, mean difference 0.63 [95% confidence interval {95% CI} 0.29-0.96]; 44.3% vs 39.8% achieving a 3-point increase, moderate certainty) and may reduce severe exacerbations in patients at high risk for future exacerbations (risk ratio 0.89 [95% CI 0.69-1.16]; risk difference 45 fewer per 1,000 [95% CI 127 fewer to 66 more per 1,000], low certainty), with little to no difference in asthma-related quality of life (low certainty). The median of mean device failure rate was 12%, with trials reporting issues regarding sensor synchronization with smartphones (very low certainty). One trial reported a protected health information exposure while using patient-facing digital inhalers. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-facing digital inhalers probably improve asthma control and may reduce severe asthma exacerbations in patients at high risk for future exacerbations with minimal harm.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.032
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.344 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology In PracticeSame topicInhalation and Respiratory Drug DeliveryFrench-language works237,207