ArticleERJ open research2026
Development and external validation of a risk prediction tool for recurrent wheeze attacks in preschool children in England.
Article in ERJ open research, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Almost half of all children experience wheeze before their sixth birthday, with a subset experiencing recurrent attacks that increase healthcare burden. Early identification of children at high risk could enable timely interventions, but diagnostic tools are limited. The aim of the present study was to develop and validate a prognostic model predicting the risk of recurrent wheeze attacks (primary outcome) and hospitalisations (secondary outcome) within 12 months of an initial preschool acute wheeze presentation. Methods: We developed a multivariable logistic regression model using primary care data from 42 820 children in England aged up to 5 years with acute wheeze episodes recorded in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Predictors included demographics, clinical history and treatment patterns. The model was validated internally Results: In the CPRD development cohort, 39.6% experienced a subsequent wheeze attack and 17.4% were hospitalised. Key predictors were the healthcare setting of initial acute wheeze, prior wheeze history and reliever prescriptions; inhaled corticosteroid prescriptions reduced risk. The model demonstrated excellent calibration across internal bootstrap validation and two external validation cohorts (calibration slope=1.00, 0.94 and 0.86, respectively, calibration-in-the-large=0.00, 0.035 and -0.143) and moderate discrimination (C-statistic=0.634, 0.625 and 0.638 for wheeze). Conclusions: Using routinely collected data, the prognostic model shows strong calibration and moderate discrimination for predicting recurrent wheeze in preschool children. Implementation as a web tool could support early risk stratification and guide preventative management.
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.