Trial reportBMJ open respiratory research2026
Comparing paper Letters in addition to Emailed Audit and feedback in Refining Asthma treatment to Improve clinical and environmental Results in primary care through a cluster randomised controlled trial: the CLEAR AIR study.
Trial report in BMJ open respiratory research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05761873 (Comparing Paper Letters in Addition to Emailed Audit and Feedback in Refining Asthma Treatment to Improve Clinical and Environmental Results in Primary Care), which is not on this 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.
Comparing Paper Letters in Addition to Emailed Audit and Feedback in Refining Asthma Treatment to Improve Clinical and Environmental Results in Primary Care
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSuboptimal use of preventer inhalers and salbutamol reliever overprescribing are associated with preventable asthma deaths and are a major source of primary care carbon emissions. Audit and feedback produces modest behaviour change by assessing clinical performance and delivering feedback to encourage improvement. Although feedback is increasingly delivered digitally, clinicians may respond more to additional printed feedback reports. We evaluated whether combined digital and paper feedback was more effective than digital-only feedback in promoting safer and greener asthma prescribing at the practice level.
methodsIn this parallel, cluster randomised controlled trial, all 273 primary care practices in West Yorkshire were assigned within their primary care network clusters by stratified, permuted block randomisation to receive seven bimonthly reports on asthma prescribing either in 'digital and paper' (intervention) or 'digital-only' (control) formats. The primary outcome was the proportion of preventer inhalers prescribed in pressurised metred-dose devices due to their high carbon footprint. Intervention group allocation was concealed. The intention-to-treat population was analysed and adjusted for both potential confounders and preintervention achievement.
resultsFinal analysis assessed 270 practices in 26 clusters per arm due to practice mergers within the control group. There was no significant difference between the intervention groups based on change in the primary outcome (intervention-0.15%; control-0.19%; risk ratio-1.00; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.03) nor any secondary outcome. Analysis of both interventions combined showed a background trend of mixed improvement following feedback.
conclusionsThere was no evidence that combined paper and digital feedback was more effective than digital-only feedback, despite the background of mixed improvements following both interventions. Challenges remain to understanding the barriers to influencing the prescribing of preventer inhalers and transitioning inhaler devices towards low-carbon 'green' alternatives; however, this study demonstrated the value of an efficient 'real-world' trial embedded within an existing quality improvement initiative. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05761873.
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.