ArticleBMJ open2024
Validation of the adult asthma epidemiological score: a secondary analysis of the EPI-ASTHMA population-based study.
Article in BMJ open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe A2 score is an eight-question patient-reported outcome measure that has been validated for ruling in (score ≥4) and ruling out (score 0-1) asthma. However, this screening tool has been validated in a cohort similar to the derivation cohort used. This study aims to validate the predictive accuracy of the A2 score in a primary care population against general practitioner (GP) clinical assessment and to determine whether the proposed cut-offs are the most appropriate.
designThis accuracy study is a secondary analysis of the EPI-ASTHMA population-based study.
settingPrimary care centres in Portugal.
participantsRandom adult participants answered the A2 score by phone interview. OUTCOMES: Those with an A2 score ≥1 (plus 5% with an A2 score of 0) were invited to a diagnostic visit carried out by a GP to confirm or not a diagnosis of asthma. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.
resultsA total of 1283 participants (median 54 (p25-p75 43-66) years; 60% women) were analysed. The A2 score showed high discriminatory power in identifying asthma, with an area under the ROC curve of 82.9% (95% CI 80.4% to 85.4%). The proposed cut-off ≥4 was the most appropriate to rule in asthma (specificity 83.1%, positive predictive value 62.4%, accuracy 78%). Similarly, the proposed cut-off<2 was the most suitable for excluding asthma (sensitivity 92.7%, negative predictive value 93.7%, accuracy 60.5%).
conclusionsThe A2 score is a useful tool to identify patients with asthma in a primary care population. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT0516961.
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.