ArticleFamily practice2024
The quality of paediatric asthma guidelines: evidence underpinning diagnostic test recommendations from a meta-epidemiological study.
Article in Family practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid review of gender-affirming healthcare for children and adolescents: Evidence synthesis (2021-2025) and recommendations for South Africa.Southern African journal of HIV medicine · 2026Review
- Rapid Review of Gender-Affirming Healthcare for Children and Adolescents: Evidence Synthesis (2021-2025) and Recommendations for South Africa.Research square · 2025Article
- Temporal trends and practice variation of paediatric diagnostic tests in primary care: retrospective analysis of 14 million tests.Family medicine and community health · 2024Article
- A protocol for adapting a clinical practice guideline for the treatment of paediatric asthma for the Egyptian Pediatric Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee.Clinical and public health guidelines · 2024Article
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 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAsthma is one of the most frequent reasons children visit a general practitioner (GP). The diagnosis of childhood asthma is challenging, and a variety of diagnostic tests for asthma exist. GPs may refer to clinical practice guidelines when deciding which tests, if any, are appropriate, but the quality of these guidelines is unknown.
objectivesTo determine (i) the methodological quality and reporting of paediatric guidelines for the diagnosis of childhood asthma in primary care, and (ii) the strength of evidence supporting diagnostic test recommendations.
designMeta-epidemiological study of English-language guidelines from the United Kingdom and other high-income countries with comparable primary care systems including diagnostic testing recommendations for childhood asthma in primary care. The AGREE-II tool was used to assess the quality and reporting of the guidelines. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.
resultsEleven guidelines met the eligibility criteria. The methodology and reporting quality varied across the AGREE II domains (median score 4.5 out of 7, range 2-6). The quality of evidence supporting diagnostic recommendations was generally of very low quality. All guidelines recommended the use of spirometry and reversibility testing for children aged ≥5 years, however, the recommended spirometry thresholds for diagnosis differed across guidelines. There were disagreements in testing recommendations for 3 of the 7 included tests.
conclusionsThe variable quality of guidelines, lack of good quality evidence, and inconsistent recommendations for diagnostic tests may contribute to poor clinician adherence to guidelines and variation in testing for diagnosing childhood asthma.
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.