Trial reportAcademic pediatrics2018
Identifying Which Urban Children With Asthma Benefit Most From Clinician Prompting: Subgroup Analyses From the Prompting Asthma Intervention in Rochester-Uniting Parents and Providers (PAIR-UP) Trial.
Trial report in Academic pediatrics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- How to Interact With Interactions: What Clinicians Should Know About Statistical Interactions.Hospital pediatrics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveClinician prompts increase the likelihood of guideline-recommended corrective actions (preventive medication prescription, dose change, and/or adherence promotion) for symptomatic children with poorly controlled or persistent asthma in the primary care setting, but it is unclear if all children equally benefit. The objectives of this study were to identify whether asthma severity, visit type, and current preventive medication use were predictive of corrective actions during visits for children with symptomatic asthma, and determine whether these factors modified the effect of a prompting intervention.
methodsWe conducted prespecified subgroup analyses of a cluster randomized controlled trial of physician prompting that promoted guideline-based asthma management for urban children with symptomatic asthma. We tested predictors of corrective actions with bivariate and multivariate multilevel logistic regressions, compared intervention effects across factor categories via stratified analyses, and characterized effect modification with interaction term analyses.
resultsPrompting intervention exposure, moderate/severe disease, asthma-focused visits, and current preventive medication use were predictive of corrective actions. The prompting intervention significantly increased the rate of corrective actions for children across categories of disease severity, visit type, and preventive medication use. However, the intervention effect was significantly smaller for children already using a preventive medication (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-3.38) compared with children without preventive medication use (adjusted OR, 6.25; 95% CI, 3.39-11.54).
conclusionsPrompting increases the likelihood of corrective actions during clinic encounters; however, children already using preventive medication benefit less. It is critical for providers to recognize the need for corrective actions among these symptomatic children.
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.