Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 974

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Use of Exhaled Nitric Oxide Measurements to Guide Treatment in Chronic Asthma

Smith, Andrew D., Cowan, Jan O., Brassett, Karen P., Herbison, G. Peter, Taylor, D. Robin·2005·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: International guidelines for the treatment of asthma recommend adjusting the dose of inhaled corticosteroids on the basis of symptoms, bronchodilator requirements, and the results of pulmonary-function tests. Measurements of the fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FE(NO)) constitute a noninvasive marker that may be a useful alternative for the adjustment of inhaled-corticosteroid treatment. METHODS: In a single-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 97 patients with asthma who had been regularly receiving treatment with inhaled corticosteroids to have their corticosteroid dose adjusted, in a stepwise fashion, on the basis of either FE(NO) measurements or an algorithm based on conventional guidelines. After the optimal dose was determined (phase 1), patients were followed up for 12 months (phase 2). The primary outcome was the frequency of exacerbations of asthma; the secondary outcome was the mean daily dose of inhaled corticosteroid. RESULTS: Forty-six patients in the FE(NO) group and 48 in the group whose asthma was treated according to conventional guidelines (the control group) completed the study. The final mean daily doses of fluticasone, the inhaled corticosteroid that was used, were 370 microg per day for the FE(NO) group (95 percent confidence interval, 263 to 477) and 641 microg per day for the control group (95 percent confidence interval, 526 to 756; P=0.003), a difference of 270 microg per day (95 percent confidence interval, 112 to 430). The rates of exacerbation were 0.49 episode per patient per year in the FE(NO) group (95 percent confidence interval, 0.20 to 0.78) and 0.90 in the control group (95 percent confidence interval, 0.31 to 1.49), representing a nonsignificant reduction of 45.6 percent (95 percent confidence interval for mean difference, -78.6 percent to 54.5 percent) in the FE(NO) group. There were no significant differences in other markers of asthma control, use of oral prednisone, pulmonary function, or levels of airway inflammation (sputum eosinophils). CONCLUSIONS: With the use of FE(NO) measurements, maintenance doses of inhaled corticosteroids may be significantly reduced without compromising asthma control.

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 · 10.1056/nejmoa043596

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 974

Metadata

Authors
Smith, A. D., Cowan, J. O., Brassett, K. P., Herbison, G. P., & Taylor, D. R.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2005-05-26
Volume
352
Issue
21
Pages
2163-2173
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W1974698157
Cited by
974
References
0
FWCI
64.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
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: Use of Exhaled Nitric Oxide Measurements to Guide Treatment in Chronic Asthma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa043596
The paper
Smith, A. D., Cowan, J. O., Brassett, K. P., Herbison, G. P., & Taylor, D. R. (2005). Use of Exhaled Nitric Oxide Measurements to Guide Treatment in Chronic Asthma. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa043596

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.