CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,221Asthma and respiratory diseasesChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchOccupational exposure and asthma

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Asthma Control Test: Reliability, validity, and responsiveness in patients not previously followed by asthma specialists

Schatz, Michael, Sorkness, Christine A., Li, James T., Marcus, Philip, Murray, John J., Nathan, Robert A., Kosinski, Mark, Pendergraft, Trudy B., Jhingran, Priti·2006·Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
DOI 10.1016/j.jaci.2006.01.011
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background The development of the Asthma Control Test (ACT), a short, simple, patient-based tool for identifying patients with poorly controlled asthma, was recently described in patients under the routine care of an asthma specialist.Objectives We sought to evaluate the reliability and validity of the ACT in a longitudinal study of asthmatic patients new to the care of an asthma specialist.Methods Patients (n=313) completed the ACT and the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) at 2 physician visits (4-12 weeks apart). Pulmonary function was measured, and asthma specialists rated asthma control.Results Internal consistency reliability of the ACT was 0.85 (baseline) and 0.79 (follow-up). Test-retest reliability was 0.77. Criterion validity was demonstrated by significant correlations between baseline ACT scores and baseline specialists' ratings of asthma control (r=0.52, P<.001) and ACQ scores (r=-0.89, P<.001). Discriminant validity was demonstrated, with significant (P<.001) differences in mean ACT scores across patients differing in asthma control, pulmonary function, and treatment recommendation. Responsiveness of the ACT to changes in asthma control and lung function was demonstrated with significant correlations between changes in ACT scores and changes in specialists' ratings (r=0.44, P<.001), ACQ scores (r=-0.69, P<.001), and percent predicted FEV1 values (r=0.29, P<.001). An ACT score of 19 or less provided optimum balance of sensitivity (71%) and specificity (71%) for detecting uncontrolled asthma.Conclusions The ACT is reliable, valid, and responsive to changes in asthma control over time in patients new to the care of asthma specialists. A cutoff score of 19 or less identifies patients with poorly controlled asthma.Clinical implications In a clinical setting the ACT should be a useful tool to help physicians identify patients with uncontrolled asthma and facilitate their ability to follow patients' progress with treatment.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jaci.2006.01.011

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 17 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. O'Connor, 2002, State of asthma care in the United States, Adv Stud Med, 2, 230

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 401–500 of 1,000

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Schatz, M., Sorkness, C. A., Li, J. T., Marcus, P., Murray, J. J., Nathan, R. A., Kosinski, M., Pendergraft, T. B., & Jhingran, P.
Affiliations
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
Corresponding author
Schatz, Michael
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-03
Volume
117
Issue
3
Pages
549-556
ISSN
0091-6749 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jaci.2006.01.011
OpenAlex
W2086332783
Cited by
1,221
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 55 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 58 · 2022: 89 · 2021: 89 · 2020: 92 · 2019: 95 · 2018: 69 · 2017: 73 · 2016: 73 · 2015: 46 · 2014: 57 · 2013: 66 · 2012: 48
FWCI
20.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › 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 Control Questionnaire, reliability statistics, validity, responsiveness, uncontrolled asthma, lung function, FEV1, cut-off values
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Asthma, Child, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Respiratory Function Tests, Severity of Illness Index, Reproducibility of Results

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