Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 998

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Identifying ‘well-controlled’ and ‘not well-controlled’ asthma using the Asthma Control Questionnaire

Open access
Juniper, Elizabeth F., Bousquet, Jean, Abetz, Linda, Bateman, Eric D.·2006·Respiratory Medicine

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.rmed.2005.08.012

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.

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

Cited by

See all 998

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.