SynthesisQuality in health care : QHC1996
Organisation of asthma care: what difference does it make? A systematic review of the literature.
Synthesis in Quality in health care : QHC, 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Asthma in adults (acute).BMJ clinical evidence · 2011Pooled it
- Asthma in adults.BMJ clinical evidence · 2010Pooled it
- A meta-analysis of interventions to improve care for chronic illnesses.The American journal of managed care · 2005Pooled it
- Asthma and poverty.Thorax · 2000Article
- Changing clinical practice: views about the management of adult asthma.Quality in health care : QHC · 1999Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of different forms of organisation (delivery) of asthma care.
methodsA systematic review of the published evidence of effectiveness organisational methods of asthma management. Searches on computerised databases including Medline, CINAHL, and HELMIS, and relevant citations and letters to experts were used to identify relevant studies.
results27 studies were identified that evaluated different organisational methods of delivery across both primary and secondary sectors, such as shared care, general practice asthma clinics, outpatient programmes, inpatient admissions policies, and the use of specialists. Only one third of the studies used a randomised controlled trial and many had small sample sizes. No conclusive evidence was found to favour any particular organisational form, although limited evidence would suggest that specialist care is better than general care and that shared care can be as effective as hospital led care.
conclusionsThere is little good published research evaluating different ways of organising the delivery of asthma care. There is need for quality research on organisational methods of delivery of asthma care that could be used to inform policy makers, in particular examining whether patients treated by healthcare professional with expertise and interest in asthma will experience better outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.