ReviewJournal of asthma and allergy2025
An Updated Systematic Review on Asthma Exacerbation Risk Prediction Models Between 2017 and 2023: Risk of Bias and Applicability.
Review in Journal of asthma and allergy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Airway Inflammation to Molecular Remodeling: Integrating YKL-40, MBL and Epigenetic Biomarkers in Asthma and COPD.Biomolecules · 2026Review
- Multi-Dimensional Perspective of the Gene and Environmental Interaction in Asthma.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2026Review
- Incremental value of body composition indices in discriminating poorly controlled asthma in children: a cross-sectional study.Translational pediatrics · 2026Article
- Improving machine-learning development in allergology: bridging the gap between open-access and cohort-based databases.Current opinion in allergy and clinical immunology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurate risk prediction of exacerbations in asthma patients promotes personalized asthma management. Objective: This systematic review aimed to provide an update and critically appraise the quality and usability of asthma exacerbation prediction models which were developed since 2017. Methods: In the Embase and PubMed databases, we performed a systematic search for studies published in English between May 2017 and August 2023, and identified peer-reviewed publications regarding the development of prognostic prediction models for the risk of asthma exacerbations in adult patients with asthma. We then applied the Prediction Risk of Bias Assessment tool (PROBAST) to assess the risk of bias and applicability of the included models. Results: Of 415 studies screened, 10 met eligibility criteria, comprising 41 prediction models. Among them, 7 (70%) studies used real-world data (RWD) and 3 (30%) were based on trial data to derive the models, 7 (70%) studies applied machine learning algorithms, and 2 (20%) studies included biomarkers like blood eosinophil count and fractional exhaled nitric oxide in the model. PROBAST indicated a generally high risk of bias (80%) in these models, which mainly originated from the sample selection ("Participant" domain, 6 studies) and statistical analysis ("Analysis" domain, 7 studies). Meanwhile, 5 (50%) studies were rated as having a high concern in applicability due to model complexity. Conclusion: Despite the use of big health data and advanced ML, asthma risk prediction models from 2017-2023 had high risk of bias and limited practical use. Future efforts should enhance generalizability and practicality for real-world implementation.
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.