Cited by 2,906Asthma and respiratory diseasesChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchOccupational exposure and asthma

Development of the asthma control test

Nathan, Robert A, Sorkness, Christine A, Kosinski, Mark, Schatz, Michael, Li, James T, Marcus, Philip, Murray, John J, Pendergraft, Trudy B·2004·Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

Abstract

Background Asthma guidelines indicate that the goal of treatment should be optimum asthma control. In a busy clinic practice with limited time and resources, there is need for a simple method for assessing asthma control with or without lung function testing. Objectives The objective of this article was to describe the development of the Asthma Control Test (ACT), a patient-based tool for identifying patients with poorly controlled asthma. Methods A 22-item survey was administered to 471 patients with asthma in the offices of asthma specialists. The specialist's rating of asthma control after spirometry was also collected. Stepwise regression methods were used to select a subset of items that showed the greatest discriminant validity in relation to the specialist's rating of asthma control. Internal consistency reliability was computed, and discriminant validity tests were conducted for ACT scale scores. The performance of ACT was investigated by using logistic regression methods and receiver operating characteristic analyses. Results Five items were selected from regression analyses. The internal consistency reliability of the 5-item ACT scale was 0.84. ACT scale scores discriminated between groups of patients differing in the specialist's rating of asthma control (F = 34.5, P Conclusion Results reinforce the usefulness of a brief, easy to administer, patient-based index of asthma control.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jaci.2003.09.008

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 13 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nathan, R. A., Sorkness, C. A., Kosinski, M., Schatz, M., Li, J. T., Marcus, P., Murray, J. J., & Pendergraft, T. B.
Affiliations
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Great Falls Clinic (US)
  • Vanderbilt University Medical Center (US)
  • GlaxoSmithKline (United States) (US)
Venue
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-01
Volume
113
Issue
1
Pages
59-65
ISSN
0091-6749 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2616424562
Cited by
2,906
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 141 · 2025: 163 · 2024: 189 · 2023: 172 · 2022: 186 · 2021: 204 · 2020: 219 · 2019: 166 · 2018: 149 · 2017: 157 · 2016: 135 · 2015: 137 · 2014: 131 · 2013: 150 · 2012: 112
FWCI
24.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Asthma and respiratory diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Occupational exposure and asthma
Keywords
Asthma Control Test, asthma control, patient-reported outcome measures, asthma screening, FEV1, discriminant validity, internal consistency, treatment needs assessment
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Asthma, False Positive Reactions, Health Surveys, Humans, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sensitivity and Specificity, Severity of Illness Index, Spirometry, Reproducibility of Results, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

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