ArticleBMJ open2021
Utility of a personalised
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of a parent-proxy bronchiectasis child quality-of-life instrument: the BC-QoL.ERJ open research · 2026Article
- Burden of Care for Children with Bronchiectasis from Parents/Carers Perspective.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBronchiectasis is no longer considered rare or irreversible in children, yet it remains relatively under-researched and neglected in respiratory health globally. Bronchiectasis (including chronic suppurative lung disease) causes substantial morbidity for patients and significant impact on caregivers, especially during acute respiratory exacerbations. In other chronic respiratory diseases (eg, asthma), empowering consumers with an individualised plan for management of acute exacerbations improves clinical outcomes. However, in the absence of any such data specific to bronchiectasis, action management plans are rarely currently used in children or adults with bronchiectasis. We hypothesise that providing an individualised bronchiectasis action management plan (BAMP) to children with bronchiectasis reduces non-scheduled doctor consultations, compared with not having a BAMP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multicentre, parallel, double-blind, randomised trial involving three urban Australian hospitals commenced in June 2018 and will include 198 children, aged <19 years with bronchiectasis who had 2 or more exacerbations in the previous 18 months. Children will be randomised to having an individualised BAMP or standard care (a decoy clinic letter). Primary caregivers will then be followed up monthly for 12 months. The primary outcome is the rate of acute non-scheduled doctor visits for respiratory exacerbations by 12 months. The main secondary outcomes are cough-specific quality of life scores at 6 and 12 months, overall exacerbation rate over 12 months, and proportion of children who received timely influenza vaccination by 30 May annually. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Human Research Ethics Committees of the Northern Territory Department of Health and Menzies School of Heath Research and Queensland Children's Hospital approved the study. The results of the trial will be submitted for publication and the BAMP made available free online. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register ACTRN12618000604202.
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.