ArticleBJGP open2025
Prevalence and predictors of annual asthma reviews in Scottish primary care data: an observational study.
Article in BJGP open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Characteristics associated with regular attendance and quality of asthma annual reviews in adults with asthma in England.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeople with asthma are recommended to have regular reviews in primary care, with assessment of symptoms, adjustment of treatment and self-management processes, and the delivery of a written action plan for emergencies.
aimTo investigate the incidence and factors associated with attendance of annual asthma reviews. DESIGN &
settingThis observational study used electronic health records for 49 307 patients in Scotland with asthma between 1 January 2000 and 31 March 2017. The analysis population of 13 726 patients had at least five asthma-related encounters between 2008 and 2016.
methodMultivariable logistic regression was employed, using linked primary care prescription data and primary care registration demographic data.
resultsThere was a median of 381 days between subsequent reviews. Reviews in the index year were strongly associated with reviews in the following year (odds ratio [OR] 1.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.68 to 1.84). In contrast, asthma consultations (excluding reviews) in the index year were associated with lower odds of having a review in the following year (OR 0.48, 95% CI = 0.46 to 0.51). Those aged 18-35 years in the index year or those with missing addresses in the practice registration data were the least likely groups to have an asthma review in the following year.
conclusionReviewing the delivery of asthma care identifies patients who may be slipping through the gaps by receiving only reactive asthma care rather than the structured, preventive care that can be delivered through annual reviews. Understanding the risk factors for not receiving an annual review can be leveraged to create more effective review invitations, such as explaining the specific content of reviews, introducing new contact methods to improve health equity, and reviewing the algorithm used to determine who is invited.
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.