Zain Amanda, Ng Alston Z Y, Yeo Inez, Watts Nick, Sevdalis Nick
Centre for Sustainable Medicine, National University of Singapore Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, Singapore
Khoo Teck Puat-National University Children's Medical Institute, Singapore.
BMJ Open. 2025 Jan 29;15(1):e088846. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-088846.
Inhalers are critical in asthma treatment, and inappropriate inhaler use leads to poor asthma outcomes. In adults and adolescents, dry powder inhalers (DPIs) are safe and effective alternatives to mainstay pressurised metered dose inhalers and could bridge the asthma care gap while also reducing the environmental burden of asthma care. Despite being licensed for use in ages 5 years old and older, the evidence for clinical effectiveness is less clear for patients between ages 5 and 12 years. This protocol describes a scoping review. The primary aim of the review is to identify and synthesise evidence on the clinical effectiveness of DPI use in children aged 5-12 years old with asthma and other wheezing conditions. The secondary aim of the review is to outline the implementation strategies and outcomes supporting the prescribing or switching to DPIs in children.
We will conduct a systematic and comprehensive literature search across four electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and CINAHL) and grey literature. Screening and data extraction will be done independently by two review authors with discrepancies resolved through consensus. Data will be extracted and charted by two independent reviewers, then presented diagrammatically or tabulated with an accompanying narrative summary.
Ethical approval was not required for this study as it is a scoping review. The results of this scoping review will be submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal for publication.
吸入器在哮喘治疗中至关重要,吸入器使用不当会导致哮喘治疗效果不佳。在成人和青少年中,干粉吸入器(DPI)是主要的定量压力气雾剂的安全有效替代品,可缩小哮喘护理差距,同时减轻哮喘护理的环境负担。尽管已获许可用于5岁及以上人群,但对于5至12岁的患者,其临床有效性证据尚不清楚。本方案描述了一项范围综述。该综述的主要目的是识别和综合关于5至12岁哮喘及其他喘息性疾病儿童使用DPI的临床有效性的证据。该综述的次要目的是概述支持为儿童开具DPI处方或改用DPI的实施策略及结果。
我们将在四个电子数据库(Medline、Embase、Cochrane图书馆和CINAHL)以及灰色文献中进行系统全面的文献检索。筛选和数据提取将由两位综述作者独立完成,如有分歧将通过协商解决。数据将由两位独立评审员提取并制表,然后以图表形式呈现或列表并附带叙述性总结。
由于本研究是一项范围综述,无需伦理批准。本范围综述的结果将提交给同行评审的科学期刊发表。