Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28526889›Full record

ArticleNPJ primary care respiratory medicine2017

The contribution of an asthma diagnostic consultation service in obtaining an accurate asthma diagnosis for primary care patients: results of a real-life study.

R M E Gillis, W van Litsenburg, R H van Balkom, J W Muris, F W Smeenk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ primary care respiratory medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Breathing exercises for adults with asthma.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Unmet needs in asthma.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2019
    Review
  9. Article
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

5 authors.

R M E GillisDepartment of Pulmonology, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, Netherlands. rmegillis@gmail.com.
W van LitsenburgDepartment of Pulmonology, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, Netherlands.
R H van BalkomDepartment of Pulmonology, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, Netherlands.
J W MurisDepartment of Family Medicine, Research institute CAPHRI, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, Netherlands.
F W SmeenkDepartment of Pulmonology, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous studies showed that general practitioners have problems in diagnosing asthma accurately, resulting in both under and overdiagnosis. To support general practitioners in their diagnostic process, an asthma diagnostic consultation service was set up. We evaluated the performance of this asthma diagnostic consultation service by analysing the (dis)concordance between the general practitioners working hypotheses and the asthma diagnostic consultation service diagnoses and possible consequences this had on the patients' pharmacotherapy. In total 659 patients were included in this study. At this service the patients' medical history was taken and a physical examination and a histamine challenge test were carried out. We compared the general practitioners working hypotheses with the asthma diagnostic consultation service diagnoses and the change in medication that was incurred. In 52% (n = 340) an asthma diagnosis was excluded. The diagnosis was confirmed in 42% (n = 275). Furthermore, chronic rhinitis was diagnosed in 40% (n = 261) of the patients whereas this was noted in 25% (n = 163) by their general practitioner. The adjusted diagnosis resulted in a change of medication for more than half of all patients. In 10% (n = 63) medication was started because of a new asthma diagnosis. The 'one-stop-shop' principle was met with 53% of patients and 91% (n = 599) were referred back to their general practitioner, mostly within 6 months. Only 6% (n = 41) remained under control of the asthma diagnostic consultation service because of severe unstable asthma. In conclusion, the asthma diagnostic consultation service helped general practitioners significantly in setting accurate diagnoses for their patients with an asthma hypothesis. This may contribute to diminish the problem of over and underdiagnosis and may result in more appropriate treatment regimens. ASTHMA: SERVICE HELPS GENERAL PRACTITIONERS MAKE ACCURATE DIAGNOSES: A consultation service can help general practitioners more accurately diagnose asthma and select the appropriate treatments for their patients. Researchers in The Netherlands, led by Frank Smeenk from Catharina Hospital in Eindhoven, describe an asthma diagnostic consultation service they created to support GPs in their diagnostic process for patients suspected of having asthma. Over a four-year period, the service received a total of 659 referrals and only confirmed the diagnosis of asthma in 275 cases. Another 20 patients had asthma overlapping with chronic obstructive pulmonary syndrome. The service also picked up other diseases, such as rhinitis, that general practitioners had missed. Overall, because of the consultation service and its revised diagnoses, more than half of all patients adjusted their medications. Most patients required only a single consultation and could then be referred back to their physicians.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareReferral and ConsultationAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAsthmaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPhysical ExaminationRespiratory Function TestsRetrospective StudiesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID28526889
PMCPMC5438345

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.