Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 165

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Written individualised management plans for asthma in children and adults

Toelle, Brett, Ram, Felix SF·2004·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Non-adherence to treatment advice is a common phenomenon in asthma and may account for a significant proportion of the morbidity. Comprehensive care that includes asthma education, a written self-management plan and regular review has been shown to improve asthma outcomes, but the contribution of these components has not been established. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the provision of a written asthma self-management plan increases adherence and improves outcome. SEARCH STRATEGY: We carried out a search on the Cochrane Airways Group trials register. There was no language restriction. The search of the databases used the following terms: action plan OR self OR self-care OR self-manag* OR educ* AND adher* OR comply OR compli*. We contacted authors of included studies for any unpublished or on-going studies and bibliographies of all included studies and reviews were searched for further studies. The most recent search was carried out in May 2003. SELECTION CRITERIA: We only considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with asthma. Participants must have been assigned to receive an individualised written asthma management plan (symptom or peak flow based) about the actions required for regular asthma management and/or the actions to take in the event of an asthma exacerbation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed study quality and abstracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials met the inclusion criteria. The written management plans were either peak flow or symptom based, which were compared against each other or compared to no written management plan. Reported outcomes included: medication adherence, hospitalisation, emergency department visits, oral corticosteroid use, lung function, days lost from school/work, unscheduled doctor visits and respiratory tract infections. There was no consistent evidence that written plans produced better patient outcomes than no written plan. For some outcomes, there appeared to be an advantage of one type of plan over the other, but there was no consistency - one type of plan was not consistently more effective than another. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: The available trials are too small and the results too few and inconsistent to form any firm conclusions as to the contribution of written self management plans in the known beneficial effects of a comprehensive asthma care programme.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd002171.pub2This paper is marked retracted.

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 165

Metadata

Authors
Toelle, B., & Ram, F. S.
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Published
2004-01-26
Issue
2
Pages
CD002171-CD002171
ISSN
1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2122866102
Cited by
165
References
2
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Status
Retracted
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Written individualised management plans for asthma in children and adults. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd002171.pub2
The paper
Toelle, B., & Ram, F. S. (2004). Written individualised management plans for asthma in children and adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd002171.pub2

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.