Skip to main content
. 2012 Dec 12;2012(12):CD002308. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002308.pub2

Sharma 2003.

Methods Design: randomised controlled trial
 Method of randomisation: not stated
 Means of allocation concealment: not stated
 Withdrawals/drop‐outs: not stated
 Blinding: none
Participants Eligible: not stated
 Randomised: 57 (group 1: 14, group 2: 14, group 3: 15, group 4: 14)
 Completed: 57
 Age range (years): 5 to 12
 Sex (M/F): 29/28
Asthma diagnosis: unclear
 Inclusion criteria: history of cough, breathlessness with wheezing, RR > 30 per min, in ED for asthma
 Major exclusions: tuberculosis, history suggestive of tuberculosis
 Baseline PEF mean (SD): treatment 92 (48), control 92 (35)
Interventions Setting: patients attending outpatient or casualty department for acute asthma at a hospital in India
 Patients were randomised to 1 of 4 groups: group 1: BDP 100 μg plus salbutamol 200 μg via MDI plus spacer; group 2: BDP 100 μg plus salbutamol 200 μg via MDI; group 3: salbutamol 200 μg via MDI plus spacer; group 4: salbutamol via MDI. The treatment was repeated every 20 min for a total of 3 treatments as needed
Outcomes Clinical parameters recorded included PEF, HR, RR, blood pressure, wheezing and retractions. Laboratory parameters recorded included serum glucose, sodium, potassium and arterial blood gases
Notes This trial was added in July 2005; the author was not contacted
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Method of random sequence generation not reported
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Method of allocation concealment not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes High risk Trial not blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes High risk Trial not blinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk No indication of patients being withdrawn from trial
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk No apparent indication of reporting bias