LAMA vs LABA: Severe exacerbations: low‐risk population
LAMA showed no clear difference in severe exacerbations: low‐risk population compared with LABA (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
LAMA vs LABA Severe exacerbations: low‐risk population · chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with predicted FEV1 of less than 80% LAMA showed no clear difference in severe exacerbations: low‐risk population compared with LABA (low certainty). Dual combination therapy versus long‐acting bronchodilators alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease… (2018) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | OR 0.64 [0.36, 1.13] | 4 studies · 3320 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dual combination therapy versus long‐acting bronchodilators alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a systematic review… 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.