ArticleAsia Pacific allergy2020
Natural history of asthma symptoms after epidemic thunderstorm asthma: a 3-year longitudinal study.
Article in Asia Pacific allergy, 2020. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Under the weather: an epidemic thunderstorm asthma event in Leicester, June 2023.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Article
- Pulmonary Function Tests in Thunderstorm-associated Respiratory Symptoms: A Cross-sectional Study.Iranian journal of medical sciences · 2024Article
- The Melbourne epidemic thunderstorm asthma event 2016: a 5-year longitudinal study.Asia Pacific allergy · 2022Article
- Thunderstorm allergy and asthma: state of the art.Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine · 2021Article
- COVID-19 and allergy.Asia Pacific allergy · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe world's most catastrophic epidemic thunderstorm asthma event (ETSA) affected Melbourne in 2016. Little is known about the natural history of individuals affected by such extreme events.
objectiveIn this single center prospective 3-year longitudinal study, symptomatology and behaviors of individuals affected by ETSA were assessed.
methodsStandardized telephone questionnaire was used to evaluate frequency of asthma symptoms, inhaled corticosteroid preventer use, asthma action plan ownership, and healthcare utilization. Questionnaires were administered at 12, 24, and 36 months after 2016 ETSA. Subgroup analyses of the 'current', 'past', 'possible,' and 'no asthma' subgroups were also conducted.
resultsTwo hundred and eight, 164, and 112 completed questionnaires were analyzed in 2017, 2018, and 2019, respectively. Seventy to eighty five percent of respondents reported ongoing asthma symptoms in any given year, of which 20%-28% experienced weekly symptoms. Nearly 50% of respondents were prescribed preventers, with approximately 45% adherent at least 5 days a week. Less than 40% had an asthma action plan and 15%-20% sought urgent medical attention for asthma over the follow-up period. Among 106 individuals with 3 consecutive years of completed questionnaires, those with no prior doctor diagnosis of asthma were significantly more likely to be asymptomatic on follow-up than those with a prior doctor diagnosis of asthma (
conclusionIn individuals affected by ETSA, we found evidence of ongoing loss of asthma control in those with previously well controlled asthma, and the persistence of symptoms suggestive of asthma in those with no history or symptoms suggestive of prior asthma, even after 36 months from initial ETSA. Low rates of inhaler adherence and asthma action plan ownership may contribute to increased morbidity and mortality from future ETSA events. Further research is required to confirm these findings.
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.