ReviewClinical and translational allergy2014
Operational definitions of asthma in recent epidemiological studies are inconsistent.
Review in Clinical and translational allergy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
45 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Operational definitions of paediatric asthma used in epidemiological studies: A systematic review.Journal of global health · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Lung function across the life course in Kenya: a series of cross-sectional surveys.ERJ open research · 2026Article
- Prevalence and risk factors of chronic cough in an adult community-dwelling Portuguese population.ERJ open research · 2025Article
- The prevalence and risk factors of respiratory symptoms in Finland: a comparative analysis.European clinical respiratory journal · 2025Article
- Asthma and pregnancy.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2025Review
- Article
- Validation of the adult asthma epidemiological score: a secondary analysis of the EPI-ASTHMA population-based study.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Ascertaining asthma status in epidemiologic studies: a comparison between administrative health data and self-report.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- Preterm birth, birth weight, infant weight gain and their associations with childhood asthma and spirometry: a cross-sectional observational study in Nairobi, Kenya.BMJ open respiratory research · 2023Observational
- Article
- Validation of the cough phenotype TBQ among elderly Finnish subjects.ERJ open research · 2022Article
- Article
- The Combined Value of Type2 Inflammatory Markers in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Article
- Eosinophilia and fractional exhaled nitric oxide levels in chronic obstructive lung disease.Thorax · 2022Article
- Asthma, atopy and lung function in young adults after hospitalisation for bronchiolitis in infancy: impact of virus and sex.BMJ open respiratory research · 2022Article
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
objectiveThe best combination of questions to define asthma in epidemiological asthma studies is not known. We summarized the operational definitions of asthma used in prevalence studies and empirically assess how asthma prevalence estimates vary depending on the definition used.
methodsWe searched the Thomson Reuters ISI Web of knowledge and included (1) cross-sectional studies (2) on asthma prevalence (3) conducted in the general population and (4) containing an explicit definition of asthma. The search was limited to the 100 most-cited papers or published since January 2010. For each paper, we recorded the asthma definition used and other variables. Then we applied the definitions to the data of the Portuguese National Asthma survey (INAsma) and of the 2005-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) computing asthma prevalence estimates for the different definitions.
resultsOf 1738 papers retrieved, 117 were included for analysis. Lifetime asthma, diagnosed asthma and current asthma were defined in 8, 12 and 29 different ways, respectively. By applying definitions of current asthma on INAsma and NHANES data, the prevalence ranged between 5.3%-24.4% and 1.1%-17.2%, respectively.
conclusionsThere is considerable heterogeneity in the definitions of asthma used in epidemiological studies leading to highly variable estimates of asthma prevalence. Studies to inform a standardized operational definition are needed. Meanwhile, we propose a set of questions to be reported when defining asthma in epidemiological studies.
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.