ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2004
How accurate is diagnosis of asthma in a general practice database? A review of patients' notes and questionnaire-reported symptoms.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Examining the diagnostic validity of the ISAAC asthma questionnaire among participants from Singapore and Malaysia.Asia Pacific allergy · 2025Article
- The contribution of an asthma diagnostic consultation service in obtaining an accurate asthma diagnosis for primary care patients: results of a real-life study.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2017Article
- Validation of asthma recording in electronic health records: a systematic review.Clinical epidemiology · 2017Review
- Identification of asthmatic children using prescription data and diagnosis.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2007Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPlanned care of patients with chronic diseases in primary care depends on being able to identify them. A recorded label of asthma does not necessarily mean that the patient is currently symptomatic, and failure to record the diagnosis may influence future care.
aimTo determine the degree of under- and over-reporting of the diagnosis of asthma for patients aged 16-55 years inclusive in one large general practice.
designA questionnaire validated for the detection of bronchial hyper-reactivity was sent to all patients recorded as having asthma and their matched controls. Patients with a diagnosis of asthma and symptomatic bronchial hyper-reactivity were considered to have asthma. Evidence of asthma in the written and computer records was sought for two groups: patients with asthma and without symptoms of bronchial hyper-reactivity, and controls with symptoms of bronchial hyper-reactivity.
settingA semi-rural group practice with 14 830 patients.
methodQuestionnaires were sent to 833 patients and 831 controls matched by age and sex.
resultsResponse rates were 79.1% (659/833)for patients with asthma and 70.6% (587/831) for control patients. Of the patients with asthma who replied, 60.5% (399/659) had symptomatic bronchial hyper-reactivity. Of those with asthma and a negative bronchial hyper-reactivity status (based on the questionnaire), 190/260 (73.1%) were considered to have had asthma when diagnosed, on review of their primary care records. There was no evidence to suggest asthma in 45 (17.3%) of the 260 patients who had a negative bronchial hyper-reactivity status. Of the control patients, 41 (7.0%) of the 587 responders had symptomatic bronchial hyper-reactivity and nine of these may have asthma. By extrapolation, we estimate that there were possibly another 99 patients with symptoms of asthma, who had not been labelled as having asthma, and 362 patients with symptoms of bronchial hyper-reactivity who had not reported them to their doctors or had not had them recognised.
conclusionsThere is an 89.4% chance that a patient recorded as having asthma has, or has had, asthma.
Indexed as
Identifiers
15593441PMC1324880W2151383479What 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.