Trial reportScientific reports2022
Efficacy and feasibility of the BREATHE asthma intervention with American Indian children: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2022. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
American Indian (AI) children experience significant disparities in asthma prevalence, severity, and burden of disease, yet few asthma education interventions are tested in this population. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of the BREATHE intervention with parents and AI children, during a 3-year follow-up period (n = 108), using a randomized controlled design. Children with asthma identified by electronic medical records (EMR) were screened and matched with 2 controls. The intervention included an initial educational and 24 months of follow-up. The control group continued their usual care. The primary outcome was the frequency of EMR documented, emergency department (ED) visits or hospitalization for respiratory complaints. There was no statistical difference in mean primary outcomes (1.34 (1.98) vs 1.22 (1.95), - 0.88 to 0.63, 95% CI of the difference, p = 0.75), nor percent with any ED visit or hospitalization (29/53, 55% vs 30/55, 54%, p = 0.99) between the intervention or control groups respectively. After 365 days, there was a borderline significant difference in time to primary outcome. Although limited in power, the present study did not demonstrate a persistent effect of this intervention. We recommend that AI pediatric asthma interventions are culturally-designed, use feasible procedures, and repeat education at least every 12 months.
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.