Evidence Hub

Response to Duovent of chronic reversible airways obstruction--a controlled trial in general practice

Morton O

Postgraduate medical journal, 1984

Abstract

A controlled trial was carried out in general practice comparing, in two successive 3 week periods, respiratory function in patients with chronic reversible airway obstruction treated, in the first period with their existing metered dose inhaler (MDI) and in the second period with Duovent , an MDI combining anticholinergic and beta2-stimulant agents respectively. One hundred and twenty-two patients were included. Peak expiratory flow rates were increased to a statistically significant degree during the Duovent period and, during this period, there was a significant reduction in day-time cough, night-time wheeze and night wakings . Global ratings by patients and physicians showed that 76% of patients improved with Duovent , and two-thirds of the patients preferred Duovent to their former MDI. Side effects with Duovent were mild, with dry mouth predominating.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free