Observational studyAdvances in therapy2024
The Association Between Short-Acting β
Observational study in Advances in therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Worsening Asthma Outcomes in Australian Adults: A Comparison of Stratified Sample Surveys in 2012 and 2021.The Medical journal of Australia · 2026Article
- Vietnamese Consensus on the Structure and Content of Asthma Action Plan.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Patterns of care in the management of high-risk COPD in Australia (2015-2019): an observational study for the CONQUEST quality improvement program.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025Article
- Expert opinion on gray areas in asthma management: A lesson from the innovative project "revolution in asthma" of the Italian thoracic society (AIPO-ITS).Clinical and translational allergy · 2025Review
- A 21-Practice Evaluation of an Asthma and COPD Quality Improvement Program.Journal of asthma and allergy · 2025Article
- Over-the-counter short-acting βNPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
28 authors at 10 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn Australia, short-acting β
methodsThis was a cross-sectional study, using data derived from primary care electronic medical records (EMRs) and patient completed questionnaires within Optimum Patient Care Research Database Australia (OPCRDA). A total of 720 individuals aged ≥ 12 years with an asthma diagnosis in their EMRs and receiving asthma therapy were included. The annual number of SABA inhalers authorised on prescription, acquired OTC and reported, and the association with self-reported exacerbations and asthma control were investigated.
results92.9% (n = 380/409) of individuals issued with SABA prescription were authorised ≥ 3 inhalers annually, although this differed from self-reported usage. Of individuals reporting SABA use (n = 546) in the last 12 months, 37.0% reported using ≥ 3 inhalers. These patients who reported SABA overuse experienced 2.52 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.73-3.70) times more severe exacerbations and were 4.51 times (95% CI 3.13-6.55) more likely to have poor asthma control than those who reported using 1-2 SABA inhalers. Patients who did not receive SABA on prescription (43.2%; n = 311/720) also experienced 2.71 (95% CI 1.07-7.26) times more severe exacerbations than those prescribed 1-2 inhalers. Of these patients, 38.9% reported using OTC SABA and other prescription medications, 26.4% reported using SABA OTC as their only asthma medication, 13.2% were prescribed other therapies but not SABA OTC and 14.5% were not using any medication.
conclusionBoth self-reported SABA overuse and zero SABA prescriptions were associated with poor asthma outcomes. The disconnect between prescribing authorisation, OTC availability and actual use, make it difficult for clinicians to quantify SABA use.
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.