ReviewChest2024
An Update on Patient-Reported Outcomes in Asthma.
Review in Chest, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A new era beckons in asthma: enhanced models of care, disease remission, artificial intelligence and consumer participation.Internal medicine journal · 2026Review
- Article
- Patient-reported treatment outcomes in ME/CFS and long COVID.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Using biomarkers and independent predictors of therapy response to optimize treatment of uncontrolled severe asthma in the biologic era.Frontiers in allergy · 2025Review
- A Fully Decentralized Randomized Controlled Study of As-Needed Albuterol-Budesonide Fixed-Dose Inhaler in Mild Asthma: The BATURA Study Design.Journal of asthma and allergy · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
topic importancePatient-reported outcomes (PROs) are information provided by patients on their condition, function, well-being, or experience. Instruments to quantify PROs, called patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), allow standardized assessment of a unique dimension of health that cannot be measured physically. Herein, we discuss how to appraise PROMs critically and provide an update on their use in asthma clinical practice and research. REVIEW
findingsAsthma-specific PROMs have been developed to measure a wide array of disease characteristics, including symptoms, medication use, exacerbations, and impairments to emotional and physical function. Some PROMs also include spirometry or expand questions to overlap with rhinitis symptoms. Use of PROMs to understand asthma control is included in management guidelines, yet real-world evidence of their effectiveness in improving asthma care remains limited. These instruments may be less accurate in characterizing patients with poorly controlled asthma and have modest correlation with exacerbation risk. Two new PROMs are highlighted, the Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire as an instrument to assess asthma control that incorporates domains related to exacerbation risk and impairment, and the CompEx as a composite of daily diary reporting combined with exacerbation events as an early efficacy signal for interventional trials. SUMMARY: PROMs are fundamental to asthma assessment. Novel instruments may improve the detection of patients at risk for poor outcomes and shorten the drug discovery pipeline. However, urgent research is needed to understand their practical utility in clinical settings.
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.