ArticleJournal of clinical medicine research2020
Outpatient Management of Bronchial Asthma: A Comparative Analysis Between Guideline-Directed Management and Usual Management.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBronchial asthma is a common controllable disease that causes a serious economic and social burden. The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) was developed to help guide clinicians in appropriate management of asthma. Despite the existence of published guidelines, common practice in many primary care clinics follows usual care based on clinical gestalt. This study aims to determine if there is a statistically significant difference in outcomes between patients receiving guideline-directed therapy when compared to those receiving usual clinician therapy.
methodsA total of 300 patients were included in this study. Among them, 139 patients received guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT group) and 161 received usual medical therapy (UMT group). Logistic regression models were utilized to determine if there was a significant difference in outcomes for patients comparing number of exacerbations and number of hospitalizations.
resultsMore patients in GDMT group suffered from recorded exacerbations in the prior year with 43.9% having one, 3.6% having two, and 0.7% having three, compared to the frequencies of exacerbations in the UMT group (29.2%, 1.9%, and 1.2%, respectively) (P < 0.05). Cumulative number of hospitalizations due to asthma exacerbations in the prior year was also higher in GDMT group compared to the UMT group (one in 5.8% GDMT vs. 3.1% UMT; two in 0.0% GDMT vs. 0.6% UMT) without statistically significant difference (P = 0.349).
conclusionsPrimary care providers' adherence to the 2018 GINA guidelines for asthma treatment did not offer benefit to patient outcomes, such as number of exacerbations or hospitalizations, compared to the usual medical care of bronchial asthma. Patient-tailored care may offer reduction in the rates of exacerbations and hospitalization.
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.