ArticleThe World Allergy Organization journal2025
Differences in the efficacies of commonly used asthma questionnaires for predicting asthma-related outcomes among elderly and non-elderly patients in Japan.
Article in The World Allergy Organization journal, 2025. 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 clinician-oriented machine learning model for adult asthma exacerbation prediction: comparative analysis of nine algorithms.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Elderly asthma (EA) and non-elderly asthma (NEA) have been shown to differ greatly. The aim of this study was therefore to identify any differences in the abilities of commonly used asthma questionnaires to predict asthma outcomes in patients with EA and those with NEA, and to further determine the questions that are important for outcome prediction. Methods: This study analyzed data from the NHOM-Asthma study, a nationwide asthma registry in Japan which included 1014 patients with EA (aged ≥65 years) and 842 with NEA (aged <65 years). The correlations between total scores or individual items of the Asthma Control Questionnaire 6 (ACQ6), Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), and Asthma Starts with Knowledge 20, and asthma-related outcomes (unscheduled hospital visits, acute exacerbations, admissions within 1 year, and pulmonary function test results) were analyzed. Results: Worse baseline ACQ6 and AQLQ scores were significantly correlated with worse asthma-related outcomes in patients with NEA. In contrast, in patients with EA, these scores and the individual question items showed only a weak or no correlation with asthma-related outcomes. Instead, specific questions related to wheezing, nocturnal symptoms, nasal symptoms, and activity limitations were found to be closely associated with asthma-related outcomes in patients with EA. Moreover, the oscillometry data may better reflect the severity of asthma symptoms and activity limitations, as assessed by questionnaires, than spirometry data, including the forced expiratory volume in 1 sec, in patients with EA. Conclusions: Commonly used asthma questionnaires may not be suitable for predicting outcomes in patients with EA. However, specific questions addressing factors such as wheezing, nocturnal symptoms, nasal issues, and activity limitations may serve as reliable indicators of asthma-related outcomes in these patients.
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.