Trial reportItalian journal of pediatrics2024
A smartphone app for preschool wheezing and reliability of medical history collection.
Trial report in Italian journal of pediatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe use of mobile applications helps improving self-management in adolescents with asthma. However, no evidence is available for children with preschool wheezing. In addition, we have no data on the reliability of medical history collected at visits. The first aim was to assess the feasibility of a smartphone app in the management of preschool wheezing; secondly we aimed to evaluate the reliability of anamnestic data collected during face-to-face medical interviews.
methodsChildren with recurrent wheezing, age between 25 and 72 months, were randomly assigned to the intervention group, provided with a smartphone app for symptoms monitoring and asthma attack treatment, or to the control group, with a written action plan. At follow-up medical history was collected and the asthma control test and a clinical questionnaire were completed. App acceptability was also explored. Respiratory symptoms, medication and utilization of healthcare resources were collected. Plus, medical information obtained from the paper questionnaires was compared with data daily recorded by the app.
resultsWe enrolled 85 preschool children with recurrent wheezing: 43 assigned to the intervention and 42 to the control group. The average (SD) adherence to e-Diary compilation was 60 (15)%. The acceptance and usability of the intervention was favorable as 70% and 93% of participants in the intervention arm described the app as ''simple and intuitive'' at Visit1 (after 3 months from enrollement) and Visit2 (3 months later than Visit1), respectively and 95% and 98% found it useful in symptoms management. There were no significant differences between the two groups in clinical outcomes. At Visit1, the cACT median score (IQR) was 23,5 (21-25) for the control group (42 patients) and 23 (21-24) for the intervention group (43 patients). At Visit2 (41 controls and 42 in the intervention group) it was 25 (24-25) and 24 (24-25), respectively. Secondary analysis of data from the intervention group showed higher incidence of daily symptoms recorded by the app in comparison with the paper questionnaire, suggesting that collection of retrospective medical history may not be completely reliable.
conclusionsThe smartphone app is usable and acceptable by families of preschool wheezers. Future controlled trial are needed to prove an impact on clinical outcomes or its efficacy in a telemedicine program. Finally a daily questionnaire could provide physicians with a more reliable clinical picture as reflected better daily asthma symptoms than the written retrospective questionnaire filled at clinical visit.
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.