Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32499305›Full record

ReviewEuropean respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society2020

Minimal clinically important difference for asthma endpoints: an expert consensus report.

Matteo Bonini, Marcello Di Paolo, Diego Bagnasco, Ilaria Baiardini, Fulvio Braido, Marco Caminati, Elisiana Carpagnano, Marco Contoli, Angelo Corsico, Stefano Del Giacco and 7 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readReviewConsensus Statement
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
8.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

79 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 141 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Biologic agents licensed for severe asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2024
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Effect of point application therapy for bronchial asthma: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan · 2026
    Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Review

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

17 authors at 13 institutions in 2 countries.

Matteo BoniniNational Heart and Lung Institute, Royal Brompton Hospital & Imperial College London, London, UK.
Marcello Di PaoloNational Heart and Lung Institute, Royal Brompton Hospital & Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9123-1389
Diego BagnascoAllergy and Respiratory diseases, University of Genoa, Dept of Internal Medicine (DiMI), Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy.
Ilaria BaiardiniDept of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy.
Fulvio BraidoAllergy and Respiratory diseases, University of Genoa, Dept of Internal Medicine (DiMI), Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy.
Marco CaminatiDept of Medicine, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Elisiana CarpagnanoDivision of Respiratory Diseases, Dept of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Italy.
Marco ContoliSection of Internal and Cardiorespiratory Medicine, Dept of Medical Sciences, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.
Angelo CorsicoDivision of Respiratory Diseases, IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo Foundation - Dept of Internal Medicine and Therapeutics, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Stefano Del GiaccoDept of Medical Sciences and Public Health, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4517-1749
Enrico HefflerPersonalized Medicine, Asthma and Allergy - Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy.
Carlo LombardiDepartmental Unit of Pneumology & Allergology, Istituto Ospedaliero Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy.
Ilaria MenichiniDept of Cardiovascular, Respiratory, Nephrology, Anaesthesiology and Geriatric Science, "Sapienza" University, Rome, Italy.
Manlio MilaneseDivision of Pulmonology, S Corona Hospital, Savona, Italy.
Nicola ScichiloneAOUP Policlinico Universitario, DIBIMIS, Università di Palermo, Palermo, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6400-6573
Gianenrico SennaDept of Medicine, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Giorgio W CanonicaPersonalized Medicine, Asthma and Allergy - Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy.
IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital · ITOspedale Policlinico San Martino · ITUniversity of Verona · ITFondazione Poliambulanza Istituto Ospedaliero · ITHumanitas University · ITOspedale Santa Corona · ITRoyal Brompton Hospital · GBSapienza University of Rome · ITUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · ITUniversity of Cagliari · ITUniversity of Ferrara · ITUniversity of Foggia · ITUniversity of Pavia · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) can be defined as the smallest change or difference in an outcome measure that is perceived as beneficial and would lead to a change in the patient's medical management.The aim of the current expert consensus report is to provide a "state-of-the-art" review of the currently available literature evidence about MCID for end-points to monitor asthma control, in order to facilitate optimal disease management and identify unmet needs in the field to guide future research.A series of MCID cut-offs are currently available in literature and validated among populations of asthmatic patients, with most of the evidence focusing on outcomes as patient reported outcomes, lung function and exercise tolerance. On the contrary, only scant and partial data are available for inflammatory biomarkers. These clearly represent the most interesting target for future development in diagnosis and clinical management of asthma, particularly in view of the several biologic drugs in the pipeline, for which regulatory agencies will soon require personalised proof of efficacy and treatment response predictors.

Indexed as

Minimal Clinically Important DifferenceAnti-Asthmatic AgentsAsthmaBiomarkersBronchoconstrictionConsensusDelphi TechniqueEndpoint DeterminationHumansInflammation MediatorsLungPredictive Value of TestsSymptom AssessmentTreatment OutcomeAnti-Asthmatic AgentsBiomarkersInflammation Mediators

Identifiers

PMID32499305
PMCPMC9488652
OpenAlexW3032956223

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.