ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026
Clinical diagnosis and treatment of eosinophilic asthma by respiratory physicians in China: a cross-sectional survey.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Eosinophilic asthma (EA) differs from allergic asthma (AA) by later onset, higher exacerbation risk, rapid progression, pronounced airway limitation, and increased comorbidities. However, understanding of asthma phenotypes, particularly EA, remains inadequate among physicians, posing diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. This study aims to investigate the current understanding, diagnostic approaches, and treatment practices for EA among respiratory physicians in China. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in the Chinese mainland from January to March 2024. A structured electronic questionnaire, developed and verified by a multidisciplinary panel from the Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University and related specialties, was utilized to assess respiratory physicians' clinical attention, diagnostic-therapeutic practices, and depth of knowledge concerning EA. Results: Of the 572 valid responses, 51.0% of respiratory physicians consistently emphasized eosinophil levels in complete blood counts during asthma assessments. While a majority of physicians demonstrated awareness of key EA characteristics, their clinical practices revealed significant gaps and inconsistencies. Only 4.4% of physicians routinely performed phenotypic analysis on diagnosed asthma patients. In the selection of biologic targeted therapy for EA, omalizumab was the most preferred choice (60.1% of respondents), followed by mepolizumab (35.7%) and benralizumab (16.4%). Notably, 92.3% of surveyed physicians agreed that China requires national diagnostic and management guidelines/consensus for EA. Conclusions: Respiratory physicians in China demonstrate inconsistent knowledge and practice regarding EA, with gaps in phenotyping, eosinophil monitoring, comorbidity attention, and targeted therapy selection. The strong consensus for guideline development highlights the need for standardized protocols to bridge these gaps.
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.