SynthesisAllergy2018
Economic evidence for nonpharmacological asthma management interventions: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Allergy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Economic evidence for nonpharmacological asthma management interventions: A systematic review.Allergy · 2018Pooled it
- Enhanced access to healthcare utilization data through medical record review: Lessons learned from a community-based, multi-site project.Research in nursing & health · 2021Trial
- Multimorbidity in Difficult Asthma: The Need for Personalised and Non-Pharmacological Approaches to Address a Difficult Breathing Syndrome.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- Overuse of reliever inhalers and associated healthcare utilization of asthma patients.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Improving asthma care with Asthma-COPD Afterhours Respiratory Nurse at Emergency (A-CARE).BMJ open quality · 2020Article
- The construct validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L, AQL-5D and a bespoke TTO in acute asthmatics.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2020Article
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
Asthma management, education and environmental interventions have been reported as cost-effective in a previous review (Pharm Pract (Granada), 2014;12:493), but methods used to estimate costs and outcomes were not discussed in detail. This review updates the previous review by providing economic evidence on the cost-effectiveness of studies identified after 2012, and a detailed assessment of the methods used in all identified studies. Twelve databases were searched from 1990 to January 2016, and studies included economic evaluations, asthma subjects and nonpharmacological interventions written in English. Sixty-four studies were included. Of these, 15 were found in addition to the earlier review; 53% were rated fair in quality and 47% high. Education and self-management interventions were the most cost-effective, in line with the earlier review. Self-reporting was the most common method used to gather resource-use data, accompanied by bottom-up approaches to estimate costs. Main outcome measures were asthma-related hospitalizations (69%), quality of life (41%) and utility (38%), with AQLQ and the EQ-5D being the most common questionnaires measured prospectively at fixed time points. More rigorous costing methods are needed with a more common quality of life tool to aid greater replicability and comparability amongst asthma studies.
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.