ArticlePrimary care respiratory journal : journal of the General Practice Airways Group2014
Performance of a brief asthma control screening tool in community pharmacy: a cross-sectional and prospective longitudinal analysis.
Article in Primary care respiratory journal : journal of the General Practice Airways Group, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Meta-Analysis on Vitamin D Supplementation and Asthma Treatment.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022Pooled it
- Article
- Article
- Practice makes perfect: self-reported adherence a positive marker of inhaler technique maintenance.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2017Article
- An exploration of clinical interventions provided by pharmacists within a complex asthma service.Pharmacy practiceArticle
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGuidelines recommend basing asthma management on assessment of asthma control. Validated control tools, while suitable for clinical research, may not be feasible for routine use in primary care.
aimsTo describe the performance of the Pharmacy Asthma Control Screening tool (PACS) compared with the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-6).
methodsData were obtained from a multicentre study of a community pharmacy asthma management programme in Australia, with three or four visits over six months. Eligible participants had suboptimal asthma control or no recent visit to their doctor for asthma. Asthma control was assessed at baseline and at six months with the PACS tool and ACQ-6.
resultsA total of 570 patients were enrolled and 398 (70%) completed the programme. The average ACQ-6 score was 1.58±1.05 at baseline and 0.96±0.88 (n=392) after six months. Sensitivity and specificity of PACS 'poor control' for not well-controlled asthma (ACQ- 6 >1.0) were 0.92 and 0.66, respectively, at baseline and 0.76 and 0.83 at six months. Agreement between the two tools at six months was moderate (κ=0.54). Both tools showed highly significant change during the study (p<0.0001 for each), but agreement between the change in the two tools was only fair (κ=0.31).
conclusionsThis study shows that a simple asthma control screening tool is feasible for use in community pharmacies and has good sensitivity for identifying patients with not well-controlled asthma. Screening tools are useful in primary care to identify patients who require more detailed assessment of their asthma status, whereas for monitoring asthma control over time, a continuous control measure is more appropriate.
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.