Kemp 1999.
Methods | DESIGN: multi‐centre, randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group study | |
Participants | SYMPTOMATIC PARTICIPANTS RANDOMLY ASSIGNED: N = 174 INTERVENTION: ICS (budesonide 250 μg/d): 91 CONTROL: ICS (budesonide 500 μg/d): 83 WITHDRAWALS: reported AGE: mean (range) (months) INTERVENTION: ICS (budesonide 250 μg/d): 55.2 ± 25.5 (7‐107) CONTROL: ICS (budesonide 500 μg/d): 52.4 ± 27.9 (10‐107) GENDER: male N (%) INTERVENTION: ICS (budesonide 250 μg/d): 63 (69.2) CONTROL: ICS (budesonide 500 μg/d): 58 (69.9) ASTHMA SEVERITY: mild persistent asthma ASTHMA DURATION: mean (range) in months INTERVENTION: ICS (budesonide 250 μg/d): 35.4 ± 22.4 (5‐97) CONTROL: ICS (budesonide 500 μg/d): 36.7 ± 25.1 (5‐107) MEAN (± SD) β2‐AGONIST USE (puffs/d): not reported DOSE OF ICS AT STUDY ENTRY AND AT RUN‐IN: not reported. Participants discontinued their chronic asthma medication at the end of the study ATOPY (% of participants): not reported ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
|
|
Interventions | PROTOCOL DURATION
DEVICE: Pari LC‐Jet Plus nebuliser (with mouthpiece or face mask) DOSE OF ICS
CRITERIA FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM STUDY: not reported |
|
Outcomes | ANALYSIS: intention‐to‐treat analysis; ANOVA; Fisher's exact test OUTCOMES: at enrolment, at randomisation, after 2, 4, 8 and 12 weeks of treatment GROWTH MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUE: not reported PULMONARY FUNCTION TESTS
FUNCTIONAL STATUS
BIOMARKERS: baseline and at end of study (12 weeks)
ADVERSE EVENTS: reported WITHDRAWALS: reported |
|
Notes | PUBLICATION: full paper (1996) FUNDING: funded by AstraZeneca CONFIRMATION OF METHODOLOGY: not received |
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Insufficient information on sequence generation |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Insufficient information |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Blinding of participants and key study personnel ensured |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Blinding of participants and key study personnel ensured |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | No missing outcome data |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Study protocol not available but published reports include all expected outcomes, including those that were prespecified |
Other bias | Low risk | Study apparently free of other sources of bias |