ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners1999
Predictive value of a simple asthma morbidity index in a general practice population.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of community pharmacists in screening and subsequent management of chronic respiratory diseases: a systematic review.Pharmacy practice · 2013Article
- Assessing asthma control in UK primary care: use of routinely collected prospective observational consultation data to determine appropriateness of a variety of control assessment models.BMC family practice · 2011Article
- Respiratory medicine.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2004Review
- Patient weighting of importance of asthma symptoms.Thorax · 2001Article
- Organising primary health care for people with asthma: the patient's perspective.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2000Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is a need in primary care for simple asthma outcome measures that are valid in terms of their relationship with lung function and capable of predicting those patients for whom additional management is indicated.
aimTo assess the predictive validity of a revised asthma morbidity index in United Kingdom (UK) general practice.
methodMorbidity index and peak flow rate data were gathered from nine general practices over a three-month period. Two postal questionnaire surveys, one year apart, were conducted in one Tyneside general practice. Morbidity index data from 570 asthmatic patients were gathered in the first survey and used to predict morbidity over the next year.
resultsFor 120 responders with low morbidity, mean peak flow as a percentage of the predicted value was 91% (SD = 21%); for 91 responders with medium morbidity, the percentage was 77% (SD = 21%); and for 90 responders with high morbidity, it was 63% (SD = 29%). Fifty-seven per cent of the morbidity index categories remained unchanged after 12 months. The relative risks of high morbidity for having any acute asthma attacks, more than four attacks, and needing oral steroids during a one year period were 2.88 (CI = 1.87 to 4.43), 2.52 (CI = 1.84 to 3.44) and 2.38 (CI = 1.70 to 3.33) respectively.
conclusionThe revised morbidity index is a simple and valid tool for the opportunistic surveillance of asthma in primary care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
10622011PMC1313312What 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.