ArticleThe Journal of asthma : official journal of the Association for the Care of Asthma2017
Direct concurrent comparison of multiple pediatric acute asthma scoring instruments.
Article in The Journal of asthma : official journal of the Association for the Care of Asthma, 2017. 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.
- Intravenous Magnesium: Prompt use for Asthma in Children Treated in the Emergency Department (IMPACT-ED), a pilot randomized trial.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2025Trial
- Magnesium in acute pediatric asthma in the emergency department (MAGICIAN)-A multicentre randomized controlled clinical trial protocol.PloS one · 2026Article
- Exacerbation of Asthma Among Pediatric Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Analysis of the asthma scores recommended in guidelines for children presenting to the emergency department: a Pediatric Emergency Research Networks study.Archives of disease in childhood · 2025Observational
- Performance of the Asthma Clinical Score in the Evaluation of Acute Asthma in the Emergency Department.Pediatric pulmonology · 2025Observational
- Intravenous Magnesium: Prompt Use for Asthma in Children Treated in the Emergency Department (IMPACT-ED): Protocol for a Multicenter Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- Emergency department treatment of asthma in children: A review.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2020Review
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
Abstract
objectiveAppropriate delivery of Emergency Department (ED) treatment to children with acute asthma requires clinician assessment of acute asthma severity. Various clinical scoring instruments exist to standardize assessment of acute asthma severity in the ED, but their selection remains arbitrary due to few published direct comparisons of their properties. Our objective was to test the feasibility of directly comparing properties of multiple scoring instruments in a pediatric ED.
methodsUsing a novel approach supported by a composite data collection form, clinicians categorized elements of five scoring instruments before and after initial treatment for 48 patients 2-18 years of age with acute asthma seen at the ED of a tertiary care pediatric hospital ED from August to December 2014. Scoring instruments were compared for inter-rater reliability between clinician types and their ability to predict hospitalization.
resultsInter-rater reliability between clinician types was not different between instruments at any point and was lower (weighted kappa range 0.21-0.55) than values reported elsewhere. Predictive ability of most instruments for hospitalization was higher after treatment than before treatment (p < 0.05) and may vary between instruments after treatment (p = 0.054).
conclusionsWe demonstrate the feasibility of comparing multiple clinical scoring instruments simultaneously in ED clinical practice. Scoring instruments had higher predictive ability for hospitalization after treatment than before treatment and may differ in their predictive ability after initial treatment. Definitive conclusions about the best instrument or meaningful comparison between instruments will require a study with a larger sample size.
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.