ArticleAtencion primaria2015
[Use of the reliable change index to evaluate the effectiveness of clinical interventions: Application of an asthma training program].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Longitudinal Estimation of the Clinically Significant Change in the Treatment of Major Depression Disorder.Frontiers in psychology · 2018Article
- Cognitive behavioral therapy with and without biofeedback in fibromyalgia: Assessment of functional and clinical change.Health psychology openArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare two methods for the evaluation of outcomes to assess effectiveness of a therapeutic intervention of a professional education program on asthma control.
designA naturalistic, intervention study in which asthmatic patients were attended by clinicians (IG group) who Had taken part in a special education program and a control group (CG) that received medical assistance from clinicians still waiting to be trained. LOCATION: Five urban Primary Care Health Centres of the same region.
participantsFrom an initial sample of 100 patients, 76 formed the final sample for analysis. The study included 37 males and 39 females, aged between 18 and 65 years (M=41.2 years). The two study groups were found to be homogeneous except for the sex variable.
interventionTraining program for clinical treatment adherence. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Peak flow as spirometric index, and structured interview. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The results were initially analysed using classical techniques based on robust ANOVA models, and then by calculating the Reliable Change Index (RCI).
resultsANOVA models, conducted separately for each sex, showed no significant differences, due to sample size. RCI methodology showed significant differences in the percentage of patients improved in both groups, as well as clinically relevant changes being observed individually.
conclusionsThe RCI method is presented as an attractive alternative as regards the classical methods of analysis that can help in the clinical decision.
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.