ArticleFrontiers in allergy2026
Actual use of PROMs in asthma and rhinitis recommended by guidelines in clinical settings: PROMUSE respiratory study.
Article in Frontiers in allergy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
29 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rationale: Guidelines advise for the implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) to provide crucial insights into patients' perceptions of their disease burden, treatment needs, and quality of life. Despite their proven benefits in managing chronic respiratory diseases like asthma, allergic rhinitis (AR), and rhinosinusitis (RS), there is limited data on their adoption among physicians treating these conditions. Objectives: Our objective is to identify the utilization patterns of PROMs, together with the reasons for their usage and the barriers to their adoption among practitioners managing patients with asthma, AR, and RS. Methods: This was a cross-sectional observational study using a questionnaire encompassing all pertinent PROMs and disseminated to practitioners associated with the ARIA, UCARE, ADCARE, and ACARE networks. Individuals unfamiliar with PROMS or lacking prior experience with it were eliminated. Descriptive and analytical data were utilized, categorized by the frequency and type of PROMs applied. Stata 18.0 was utilized, with Results: A total of 439 practitioners participated, with PROMs predominantly utilized by physicians certified for over 30 years and by respiratory specialists (16.67% and 12.46%, respectively; Conclusions: The use of PROMs is suboptimal, primarily due to time limitations. It is imperative that methods be swiftly implemented to include these techniques into the therapeutic environment to attain enhanced outcomes.
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.