Observational studyBMJ open2015
Multicentre observational study of adults with asthma exacerbations: who are the frequent users of the emergency department in Japan?
Observational study in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adherence to treatment guidelines and good asthma control in Finland.European clinical respiratory journal · 2023Article
- Statistical tools used for analyses of frequent users of emergency department: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Risk factors of asthma exacerbation based on asthma severity: a nationwide population-based observational study in South Korea.BMJ open · 2018Observational
- To Investigate the Effects of Air Pollution (PM10 and SOTurkish thoracic journal · 2017Article
- Factors Predicting Recovery From Asthma Exacerbations.Allergy, asthma & immunology research · 2016Article
- Observational
- Clinical characteristics of asthmatic patients with influenza-like illness and risk of severe exacerbations in Mexico.Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology : official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology · 2016Article
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
objectivesEmergency department (ED) visits for asthma exacerbation reflect a failure of longitudinal asthma management. However, little is known about the characteristics of patients with frequent ED visits (≥2 visits in a 1-year period). We aimed to characterise the adult patients who frequently presented to the ED for asthma exacerbation in Japan.
designA multicentre chart review study of 23 EDs across Japan.
participantsAdults aged 18-54 years who presented to the ED with asthma exacerbation from 2009 to 2011. OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency of ED visits for asthma exacerbation in a 1-year period, including the index ED visit.
resultsOf the 1002 eligible patients, 218 (22%) had frequent ED visits, accounting for 48% of total ED visits for asthma exacerbation in the 1-year period. Specifically, 12% had 2 ED visits and 10% had ≥3 visits. In these patients, guideline-recommended chronic management was suboptimal. For example, among patients with ≥3 ED visits, only 63% were treated with inhaled corticosteroids and 49% were current smokers. In a multinomial logistic regression model, markers of chronic asthma severity (history of hospitalisation for asthma and use of inhaled corticosteroids) were significantly associated with a higher frequency of ED visits (both p<0.05).
conclusionsThis multicentre study in Japan demonstrated that many patients are frequent ED users for asthma exacerbation. We also found that their asthma control management is suboptimal, most likely contributing to worse chronic severity and more frequent ED visits. Further dissemination and adoption of evidence-based guidelines are required to reduce asthma morbidity in this high-risk population.
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.