Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25569880›Full record

ArticleNPJ primary care respiratory medicine2015

The minimal clinically important difference of the Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test (CARAT): cross-cultural validation and relation with pollen counts.

Sander van der Leeuw, Thys van der Molen, P N Richard Dekhuijzen, Joao A Fonseca, Frederik A van Gemert, Roy Gerth van Wijk, Janwillem W H Kocks, Helma Oosterom, Roland A Riemersma, Ioanna G Tsiligianni and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ primary care respiratory medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

13 authors.

Sander van der Leeuw1] Department of General Practice, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands [2] GRIAC Research Institute, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Thys van der Molen1] Department of General Practice, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands [2] GRIAC Research Institute, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
P N Richard DekhuijzenDepartment of Pulmonology, University Medical Center St Radboud, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Joao A FonsecaDepartment of Health Information and Decision Sciences, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Frederik A van Gemert1] Department of General Practice, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands [2] GRIAC Research Institute, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Roy Gerth van WijkDepartment of Internal Medicine-Allergology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Janwillem W H Kocks1] Department of General Practice, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands [2] GRIAC Research Institute, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Helma Oosterom1] Department of General Practice, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands [2] GRIAC Research Institute, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Roland A Riemersma1] Department of General Practice, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands [2] GRIAC Research Institute, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Ioanna G Tsiligianni1] Department of General Practice, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands [2] GRIAC Research Institute, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Letty A de WegerDepartment of Pulmonology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Joanne N G Oude Elberink1] GRIAC Research Institute, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands [2] Department of Allergology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Bertine M J Flokstra-de Blok1] Department of General Practice, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands [2] GRIAC Research Institute, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test (CARAT) monitors control of asthma and allergic rhinitis.

aimsTo determine the CARAT's minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Dutch CARAT.

methodsCARAT was applied in three measurements at 1-month intervals. Patients diagnosed with asthma and/or rhinitis were approached. MCID was evaluated using Global Rating of Change (GRC) and standard error of measurement (s.e.m.). Cronbach's alpha was used to evaluate internal consistency. Spearman's correlation coefficients were calculated between CARAT, the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ5) and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) on airway symptoms to determine construct and longitudinal validity. Test-retest reliability was evaluated with intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Changes in pollen counts were compared with delta CARAT and ACQ5 scores.

resultsA total of 92 patients were included. The MCID of the CARAT was 3.50 based on GRC scores; the s.e.m. was 2.83. Cronbach's alpha was 0.82. Correlation coefficients between CARAT and ACQ5 and VAS questions ranged from 0.64 to 0.76 (P < 0.01). Longitudinally, correlation coefficients between delta CARAT scores and delta ACQ5 and VAS scores ranged from 0.41 to 0.67 (P < 0.01). Test-retest reliability showed an ICC of 0.81 (P < 0.01) and 0.80 (P < 0.01). Correlations with pollen counts were higher for CARAT than for ACQ5.

conclusionsThis is the first investigation of the MCID of the CARAT. The CARAT uses a whole-point scale, which suggests that the MCID is 4 points. The CARAT is a valid and reliable tool that is also applicable in the Dutch population.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAsthmaCross-Cultural ComparisonFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareReproducibility of ResultsRhinitis, AllergicSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25569880
PMCPMC4532148

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.