Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30385757›Full record

ArticleNPJ primary care respiratory medicine2018

Cross-sectional study assessing the performance of the Arabic translated childhood asthma control test.

Majid AlTeneiji, Alia AlKalbani, Huda Nasser, Durdana Iram, Afaf Alblooshi, Hassib Narchi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ primary care respiratory medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

6 authors.

Majid AlTeneijiDepartment of Pediatrics, Tawam Hospital in affiliations with Johns Hopkins Medicine, P.O.Box 15258, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. maltuniji@seha.ae.
Alia AlKalbaniDepartment of Pediatrics, Tawam Hospital in affiliations with Johns Hopkins Medicine, P.O.Box 15258, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Huda NasserDepartment of Pediatrics, Tawam Hospital in affiliations with Johns Hopkins Medicine, P.O.Box 15258, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Durdana IramDepartment of Pediatrics, Tawam Hospital in affiliations with Johns Hopkins Medicine, P.O.Box 15258, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Afaf AlblooshiDepartment of Pediatrics, College of Medicine and Health Science, United Arab Emirates University, P.O.Box 17666, Al-Ain, United Arab Emirates.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5981-7133
Hassib NarchiDepartment of Pediatrics, College of Medicine and Health Science, United Arab Emirates University, P.O.Box 17666, Al-Ain, United Arab Emirates.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The standard Arabic version of the Childhood Asthma Control Test (C-ACT) has never been previously evaluated in Arab countries. We studied its correlation in Arabic speaking children in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), with both the GINA assessment of asthma control and the resulting changes in asthma management. The Arabic C-ACT was completed by the children or by their parents when needed. A GINA based level of asthma control score was assigned by their managing physician. The correlation between the different cut- scores of the C-ACT and GINA were studied. A total of 105 eligible children with asthma (aged between 4 and 11.8 years, 61% boys) were enrolled. The Arabic translated C-ACT had a high reliability (Cronbach alpha 81%) and validity (as it correlated well with the GINA level of control). We found that using it with the traditional cut-score of 19 overestimated the degree of asthma control. Instead, a calculated optimal cut-score of 20 estimated more accurately the level of asthma control as assessed both by the GINA assessment and also by changes in asthma management. The current Arabic version of the C-ACT has a good reliability and validity. By using a single optimal cut-point of 20, it can be used to assess both the level of asthma control and of treatment control. It does not, however, accurately define asthma control when using the originally proposed cut-score of 19. Physicians need to recognise that the C-ACT cut-points may vary in different populations. We suggest that cut-scores of translated versions need to be modified in different geographical settings.

Indexed as

AsthmaChildChild, PreschoolCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleTranslationsUnited Arab Emirates

Identifiers

PMID30385757
PMCPMC6212419

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.