Observational studyNPJ primary care respiratory medicine2024
Use and acceptability of an asthma diagnosis clinical decision support system for primary care clinicians: an observational mixed methods study.
Observational study in NPJ primary care respiratory medicine, 2024. 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.
- A lifecycle governance and learning health system framework for trustworthy, generalizable, and sustainable human-ai partnership in clinical practice: Lessons from the asthma-guidance and prediction system (A-GPS).Journal of the National Medical Association · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There is uncertainty about how best to diagnose asthma, especially in primary care where mis-diagnosis is common. To address this, we developed a clinical decision support system (CDSS) for asthma diagnosis in children and young people (aged 5-25 years). This study explored the feasibility and acceptability of the CDSS in UK primary care. We recruited general practices from England and Scotland. The CDSS was available for use during routine consultations for six months. We analysed CDSS usage and, toward the end of the study, undertook qualitative interviews with clinicians who had used the CDSS. Within the 10 practices who completed the study, the CDSS was used by 75 out of 94 clinicians. 11 clinicians from 8 practices were interviewed. The CDSS was acceptable to participants who particularly commented on the ease of use and auto-population of information from the patient record. Barriers to use included the inability to record findings directly into the patient notes and a sense that, whilst possibly useful for trainees and junior colleagues, the CDSS would not necessarily lead to a change in their own practice. The CDSS was generally well received by primary care clinicians, though participants felt it would be most useful for trainees and less experienced colleagues.
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.