The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Identifying ‘well-controlled’ and ‘not well-controlled’ asthma using the Asthma Control Questionnaire
Open accessAbstract
The 7-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) has been validated to measure the goals of asthma management as defined by international guidelines (minimisation of day- and night-time symptoms, activity limitation, beta(2)-agonist use and bronchoconstriction). Responses are given on a 7-point scale and the overall score is the mean of the responses (0=totally controlled, 6=severely uncontrolled). The aim of this analysis was to determine the cut-point on the ACQ that best differentiates between 'well-controlled' and 'not well-controlled' for (a) clinical practice (low risk of missing 'not well-controlled') and (b) clinical trials (low risk of including 'well-controlled'). All 1323 patients who provided data sets at week 12 in the Gaining Optimal Asthma Control (GOAL) clinical trial were included in the analysis. The gold standard for 'well-controlled' was a composite based on the GINA/NIH guidelines and derived from data collected in the clinical trial diaries and clinic records. The analysis showed that the crossover point between 'well-controlled' and 'not well-controlled' is close to 1.00 on the ACQ. However, to be confident that a patient has well-controlled asthma, the optimal cut-point is 0.75 (negative predictive value=0.85). To be confident that the patient has inadequately controlled asthma, the optimal cut-point is 1.50 (positive predictive value=0.88). In conclusion, knowledge of these cut-points will enhance practising clinicians ability to identify patients whose asthma requires additional treatment, enable investigators to enroll poorly controlled patients into studies and for both clinicians and investigators to evaluate whether treatment goals are being achieved.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Global strategy for asthma management and prevention: GINA executive summary
Bateman, E. D., Hurd, S. S., Barnes, P. J., Bousquet, J., Drazen, J. M., FitzGerald, M., Gibson, P., Ohta, K., O'Byrne, P., Pedersen, S. E., et al. (2008) · European Respiratory Journal · doi:10.1183/09031936.00138707 · Cited by 3,203
Self-citationReddel, H. K., Taylor, D. R., Bateman, E. D., Boulet, L.-P., Boushey, H. A., Busse, W. W., Casale, T. B., Chanez, P., Enright, P. L., Gibson, P. G., et al. (2009) · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1164/rccm.200801-060st · Cited by 1,918
Self-citationTargeting key proximal drivers of type 2 inflammation in disease
Gandhi, N. A., Bennett, B. L., Graham, N. M. H., Pirozzi, G., Stahl, N., & Yancopoulos, G. D. (2016) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd4624 · Cited by 766
Efficacy of Esomeprazole for Treatment of Poorly Controlled Asthma
(2009) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0806290 · Cited by 382
Contextual Errors and Failures in Individualizing Patient Care
Weiner, S. J., Schwartz, A., Weaver, F., Goldberg, J., Yudkowsky, R., Sharma, G., Binns-Calvey, A., Preyss, B., M. Schapira, M., Persell, S. D., et al. (2010) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-153-2-201007200-00002 · Cited by 214
Metadata
- Authors
- Juniper, E. F., Bousquet, J., Abetz, L., & Bateman, E. D.
- Venue
- Respiratory Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2006-04
- Volume
- 100
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 616-621
- ISSN
- 0954-6111 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1966718625
- Cited by
- 998
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 12.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Identifying ‘well-controlled’ and ‘not well-controlled’ asthma using the Asthma Control Questionnaire. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.rmed.2005.08.012
- The paper
- Juniper, E. F., Bousquet, J., Abetz, L., & Bateman, E. D. (2006). Identifying ‘well-controlled’ and ‘not well-controlled’ asthma using the Asthma Control Questionnaire. Respiratory Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2005.08.012
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.