Trial reportThe Journal of allergy and clinical immunology2019
A computerized decision support tool to implement asthma guidelines for children and adolescents.
Trial report in The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Mepolizumab for urban children with exacerbation-prone eosinophilic asthma in the USA (MUPPITS-2): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial.Lancet (London, England) · 2022Trial
- Facilitators and barriers to the implementation of the Primary Care Asthma Paediatric Pathway: a qualitative analysis.BMJ open · 2022Trial
- Impact of race-based spirometry equations on guideline-based asthma management in clinical trials.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2025Article
- AI model for predicting asthma prognosis in children.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global · 2025Article
- User Experience Design for Adoption of Asthma Clinical Decision Support Tools.Applied clinical informatics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMulticenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for asthma management that incorporate usual-care regimens could benefit from standardized application of evidence-based guidelines.
objectiveWe sought to evaluate performance of a computerized decision support tool, the Asthma Control Evaluation and Treatment (ACET) Program, to standardize usual-care regimens for asthma management in RCTs.
methodsChildren and adolescents with persistent uncontrolled asthma living in urban census tracts were recruited into 3 multicenter RCTs (each with a usual-care arm) between 2004 and 2014. A computerized decision support tool scored asthma control and assigned an appropriate treatment step based on published guidelines. Control-level determinants (symptoms, rescue medication use, pulmonary function measure, and adherence estimates) were collected at visits and entered into the ACET Program. Changes in control levels and treatment steps were examined during the trials.
resultsAt screening, more than half of the participants were rated as having symptoms that were not controlled or poorly controlled. The proportion of participants who gained good control between screening and randomization increased significantly in all 3 trials. Between 51% and 70% had symptoms that were well controlled by randomization. The proportion of well-controlled participants remained constant or improved slightly from randomization until the last posttreatment visit. Nighttime symptoms were the most common control-level determinant; there were few (<1%) instances of complete overlap of factors. FEV
conclusionThe ACET Program decision support tool facilitated standardized asthma assessment and treatment in multicenter RCTs and was associated with attaining and maintaining good asthma control in most participants.
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.