Trial reportAtencion primaria2014
[A randomised clinical trial to evaluate the effectiveness of an educational intervention developed for adult asthmatics in a primary care centre].
Trial report in Atencion primaria, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Use of the reliable change index to evaluate the effectiveness of clinical interventions: Application of an asthma training program].Atencion primaria · 2015Article
- [Research into the education of asthmatic patients: the squaring of the circle].Atencion primaria · 2014Article
- GEMA 5.3. Spanish Guideline on the Management of Asthma.Open respiratory archivesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the effect of an educational intervention on asthma control and quality of life.
designA randomised clinical trial of patients with asthma, with an intervention group (IG) and a control (GC). Asthma control and quality of life was measured in both groups at baseline and every three months for one a year. Blinding was only possible in the collection and analysis of data. LOCATION: Two urban Primary Care Health Centres
participantsA total of 163 patients aged 18 to 55 years were included: 84 were assigned to the IG and 79 to the CG. The follow-up was completed by 104 patients (GI: 55 and GC 49). INTERVENTION GI: Three educational sessions in small interactive groups. The first session was at the beginning of spring, the second 15 days later, and the third 6 months later, to recall the knowledge. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Asthma control level and quality of life using ACT(Asthma Control Test) and the AQLQ (Asthma Quality of life Questionnaire).
resultsIn the third month, statistically significant differences were detected in the percentage of patients with good control [(P=.0002), 75% in the GI, and 48.5% in the GC, Relative Risk (RR)=1.6 [1.2 to 2.1], Number Needed to Treat (NNT)=3.8 [2.4 to 9.4], and an improvement in levels of quality of life from baseline (P=.005), RR=2.3 [1.3 to 4.1], NNT: 4.3 [2.6 to 12.4]. No differences were detected in the remaining sessions.
conclusionsThese interventions are effective in improving the control and quality of life in short-term, which can guide us in choosing the best time to do it.
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.