Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19001786›Full record

ReviewInternational archives of allergy and immunology2009

International differences in asthma guidelines for children.

Shannon F Cope, Wendy J Ungar, Richard H Glazier

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in International archives of allergy and immunology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Shannon F CopeDepartment of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont., Canada.
Wendy J Ungar
Richard H Glazier
Hospital for Sick Children · CAInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

CIHR 37919-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOver the last decade, a number of clinical practice guidelines that include guidance for the management of pediatric asthma have been introduced. The consistency across pediatric asthma guidelines is unknown and the emphasis on establishing asthma control may vary. The objective of this paper was to depict the evolution of guidelines for pediatric asthma and to compare current international guidelines in terms of their organization, presentation of evidence and consideration of children, with special emphasis on definitions of asthma control and severity.

methodsA systematic search to identify asthma guidelines was conducted, and guidelines were searched for pediatric terms. The approaches used by guidelines to define assessments of asthma severity and control were compared between the United States, the Global Initiative for Asthma, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia.

resultsPediatric considerations in the management of asthma have been integrated into the various guidelines to different degrees and through varied strategies. There were differences in the conceptual and operational approach used to assess asthma which emphasized either asthma severity or control.

conclusionsIt will be important for future guidelines to clearly define whether the primary assessment parameter is asthma severity or control. Delineating the guideline development process and supporting evidence may improve transparency, consistency and guideline adherence.

Indexed as

InternationalityPractice Guidelines as TopicAsthmaAustraliaCanadaChildHumansUnited KingdomUnited States

Identifiers

PMID19001786
PMCPMC4940176
OpenAlexW1975370363

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.