Vaessen‐Verberne 2010.
Methods | DESIGN: randomised, multi‐centre, parallel‐group, double‐blind study | |
Participants | SYMPTOMATIC ON CONVENTIONAL DOSES OF INHALED CORTICOSTEROIDS RANDOMLY ASSIGNED: N = 158 ANALYSED: N = 151 INTERVENTION: ICS (fluticasone 200 μg/d): 78 CONTROL: ICS (fluticasone 400 μg/d): 80 WITHDRAWALS: reported AGE: years ± SD: INTERVENTION: ICS (fluticasone 200 μg/d): 9.4 ± 1.8 CONTROL: ICS (fluticasone 400 μg/d): 9.3 ± 1.9 GENDER: N (male %): INTERVENTION: ICS (fluticasone 200 μg/d): 42 (54%) CONTROL: ICS (fluticasone 400 μg/d): 49 (61%) ASTHMA SEVERITY: not reported ASTHMA DURATION (mean years ± SD): reported INTERVENTION: ICS (fluticasone 200 μg/d): 5.7 ± 3.1 CONTROL: ICS (fluticasone 400 μg/d): 5.5 ± 3.0 MEAN (± SD) β2‐AGONIST USE (puffs/d): not reported DOSE OF ICS AT STUDY ENTRY AND AT RUN‐IN: not reported ATOPY: N (% of participants): reported INTERVENTION: ICS (fluticasone 200 μg/d): 60 (77%) CONTROL: ICS (fluticasone 400 μg/d): 58 (73%) ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
|
|
Interventions | PROTOCOL DURATION
DEVICE: Diskus DOSE OF ICS
CRITERIA FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM STUDY: reported |
|
Outcomes | ANALYSIS: intention‐to‐treat analysis OUTCOMES: Many outcomes were reported at 26 weeks; participants were evaluated at 1, 6, 16 and 26 weeks GROWTH MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUE: Height was recorded using a stadiometer at the start of the run‐in period, and at the start and at the end of the treatment period PULMONARY FUNCTION TESTS
FUNCTIONAL STATUS
BIOMARKERS
ADVERSE EVENTS
WITHDRAWALS: reported |
|
Notes | PUBLICATION: full paper (2010) FUNDING: funded by GlaxoSmithKline CONFIRMATION OF METHODOLOGY: received Data received from the study author |
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Using a computer random number generator |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Central allocation (including telephone, web‐based and pharmacy‐controlled randomisation) |
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 | Reasons for missing outcome data unlikely to be related to true outcomes |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | No missing outcome data |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Study protocol available and all of the study’s prespecified (primary and secondary) outcomes that are of interest in the review have been reported in the prespecified way |
Other bias | Low risk | Study apparently free of other sources of bias |