ArticleJournal of Korean medical science2010
Customized Asthma Control Test with reflection on sociocultural differences.
Article in Journal of Korean medical science, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Lost to follow-up in asthmatics does not mean treatment failure: causes and clinical outcomes of non-adherence to outpatient treatment in adult asthma.Allergy, asthma & immunology research · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We evaluated the utility and feasibility of customizing Asthma Control Test (ACT) items to generate a Korean Asthma Control Test (KACT) specific for Korean patients. We surveyed 392 asthma patients with 19 items, selected to reflect the Korean sociocultural context. Guideline ratings were integrated with the evaluations of specialists (i.e., using both guide base rating together with specialist's rating), and items with the greatest discriminating validity were identified. Stepwise regression methods were used to select items. KACT scale scores showed significant differences between the asthma control ratings generated by integrating ratings (r=0.77, P<0.001), by specialist's evaluations (r=0.54, P<0.001), or by FEV(1) percent predicted (r=0.39, P<0.001). Specialist's and guideline ratings detected 56% and 48.6% of patients with well-controlled asthma, respectively. However, the integrated ratings indicated that only 34.3% of the patients in the test sample were well controlled. The overall agreement between KACT and the integrated rating ranged from 45% to 78%, depending on the cut-off points used. It is possible to formulate a valid, useful country-specific diagnostic tool for the assessment of asthma patients based on the original ACT that reflect differences in sociocultural context.
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.