Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38410715›Full record

ArticleERJ open research2024

How have we measured trial outcomes of asthma attack treatment? A systematic review.

Imran Howell, Aleksandra Howell, Sanjay Ramakrishnan, Mona Bafadhel, Ian Pavord

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ERJ open research, 2024. 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
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Imran HowellRespiratory Medicine Unit, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6033-0488
Aleksandra HowellRespiratory Medicine Unit, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sanjay RamakrishnanRespiratory Medicine Unit, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3003-7918
Mona BafadhelKing'‌s Centre of Lung Health, School of Immunology and Microbial Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9993-2478
Ian PavordRespiratory Medicine Unit, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
University of Oxford · GBEdith Cowan University · AUKing's College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Asthma attacks are a common problem for people with asthma and are responsible for significant healthcare costs. There is interest in a precision medicine approach to treatment. However, the choice of trial outcome measures for asthma attack treatment is hampered by the absence of a consensus on suitability. We carried out a systematic review to understand the characteristics of outcome measures used in randomised controlled trials of asthma attack treatment. Have randomised controlled trials of asthma attack treatment measured outcomes that are useful to patients and healthcare providers? Methods: The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022311479). We searched for randomised controlled trials comparing treatments for adults with asthma attacks, published in English between 1972 and 2022 on MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. We recorded the outcome measures and study characteristics. Results: We identified 208 eligible randomised controlled trials from 35 countries. Trials ranged from 12 to 1109 participants, with a median of 60. The most common settings were the emergency department (n=165) and hospital admission (n=33). Only 128 studies had primary and secondary outcomes defined clearly. In those that did, 73% of primary outcomes measured change in lung function or other physiological parameters over a short period (usually <24 h). Patient-reported and healthcare utilisation outcomes were the primary outcome in 27%. Conclusions: Outcomes in randomised controlled trials of asthma attack treatment focus on short-term changes in lung function and may not capture patient-centred and economically important longer-term measures. More work is needed to investigate patient and other stakeholder preferences on core outcome sets.

Identifiers

PMID38410715
PMCPMC10895432
OpenAlexW4389784649

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.