Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36566032›Full record

ReviewRespiratory care2023

Comparison of National and Global Asthma Management Guiding Documents.

Joyce A Baker, Paul R Houin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Respiratory care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
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

2 authors.

Joyce A BakerBreathing Institute, Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, Colorado. joyce.baker@childrenscolorado.org.
Paul R HouinBreathing Institute, Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, Colorado.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Asthma is a common chronic disease that affects both adults and children, and that continues to have a high economic burden. Asthma management guidelines were first developed nearly 30 years ago to standardize care, maintain asthma control, improve quality of life, maintain normal lung function, prevent exacerbations, and prevent asthma mortality. The two most common asthma guidelines used today were developed by the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) Expert Panel Working Group and the Global Initiative for Asthma Science Committee. Both guiding documents use scientific methodology to standardize their approach for formulating recommendations based on pertinent literature. Before the 2020 National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (Expert Panel Report 4), nothing had been released since the 2007 guidelines, whereas the Global Initiative for Asthma publishes updates annually. Although each of these asthma strategies is similar, there are some noted differences. Over the years, the focus of asthma treatment has shifted from acute to chronic management. Frontline respiratory therapists and other health-care providers should have a good understanding of these 2 guiding references and how they can impact acute and chronic asthma management. The primary focus of this narrative is to look at the similarities and differences of these 2 guiding documents as they pertain to the 6 key questions identified by the Expert Panel of the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program.

Indexed as

AsthmaQuality of LifeAdultChildChronic DiseaseHumansAcute diseaseAsthmaChronic diseaseGuidelinesMedicationsPatient care management

Identifiers

PMID36566032
PMCPMC9993509

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.