Observational studyBMC primary care2025
A case scenario study on adherence to GINA recommendations by primary care physicians in an area of Southern Italy: the "Progetto Padre 2.0".
Observational study in BMC primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Challenges in translating GINA asthma recommendations into practice: a qualitative study of healthcare professionals in Jordan.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Asthma/COPD clinics increases adherence to management guidelines and associates with less morbidity and lower all-cause mortality - a prospective cohort study.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2026Article
- A current assessment of family physicians' knowledge and attitudes toward asthma management in primary care in Turkey according to the GINA strategy report.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate diagnosis and management of bronchial asthma are complex processes guided by national and international asthma guidelines, particularly the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA). However, adherence to these guidelines is often suboptimal, varying across healthcare professionals and countries, which can lead to poor asthma control and increased healthcare costs.
aimIn this observational study, we assessed the alignment to GINA recommendations in the diagnosis and management of asthma among 15 primary care physicians in two metropolitan areas of the Campania region, Southern Italy.
methods120 patients were randomly selected from the electronic medical records of 15 primary care physicians. Afterwards, the alignment of diagnostic pathways and treatments with current GINA recommendations was assessed by an experienced chest physician. Three main outcomes were defined: diagnostic congruence, diagnostic workup congruence, and therapeutic congruence.
resultsOverall, 26.7% of our sample presented with an incongruous asthma diagnosis, while only 46.7% patients had therapeutic prescriptions in line with the latest GINA document recommendations. Patients treated in accordance with GINA recommendations exhibited significantly higher ACT scores, averaging 20.5 ± 4.0, compared to those receiving non-guideline-directed therapy, who averaged 15.7 ± 6.1 (p < 0.001). Diagnostic congruence showed a direct correlation with atopy (r = 0.277, p = 0.002) and an inverse correlation with ACT score (r = -0.335, p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe results of this study indicate that adherence to asthma guidelines in the metropolitan areas of Naples and Benevento remains insufficient. Further research focused on developing individualized interventions to manage non-adherence is warranted.
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.