The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Evaluation of peak flow and symptoms only self management plans for control of asthma in general practice.
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare a peak flow self management plan for asthma with a symptoms only plan. DESIGN: Randomisation to one of the self management plans and follow up for a year. SETTING: Four partner, rural training practice in Norfolk. SUBJECTS: 115 Patients (46 children and 69 adults) with asthma who were having prophylactic treatment for asthma and attending a nurse run asthma clinic. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The number of doctor consultations, courses of oral steroids, and short term nebulised salbutamol treatments and the number of patients who required doctor consultations, courses of oral steroids, and short term nebulised salbutamol. RESULTS: Both self management plans produced significant reductions in the outcome measures but there were no significant differences in the degree of improvement between the groups. The results were similar for children and adults. The proportions of patients requiring a doctor consultation fell from 98% (50/51) to 66% (34/51) in the peak flow group and from 97% (62/64) to 53% (34/64) in the symptoms only group and the proportions requiring oral steroids from 73% (34/46) to 47% (21/46) and 52% (31/60) to 12% (7/60). The median number of doctor consultations was reduced from 8.0 to 2.0 in the peak flow group and from 4.5 to 1.0 in the symptoms only group. CONCLUSIONS: The peak flow meter was not the crucial ingredient in the improved illness of the two groups. Teaching patients the importance of their symptoms and the appropriate action to take when their asthma deteriorates is the key to effective management of asthma. Simply prescribing peak flow meters without a system of self management and regular review will be unlikely to improve patient care.
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-management approaches for people with chronic conditions: a review
Barlow, J., Wright, C., Sheasby, J., Turner, A., & Hainsworth, J. (2002) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/s0738-3991(02)00032-0 · Cited by 2,800
Zemek, R. L., Bhogal, S. K., & Ducharme, F. M. (2008) · Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine · doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2007.34 · Cited by 163
Barbanel, D. (2003) · Thorax · doi:10.1136/thorax.58.10.851 · Cited by 125
Metadata
- Authors
- Charlton, I., Charlton, G., Broomfield, J., & Mullee, M. A.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1990-12-15
- Volume
- 301
- Issue
- 6765
- Pages
- 1355-1359
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2111407446
- Cited by
- 321
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.22
- 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: Evaluation of peak flow and symptoms only self management plans for control of asthma in general practice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.301.6765.1355
- The paper
- Charlton, I., Charlton, G., Broomfield, J., & Mullee, M. A. (1990). Evaluation of peak flow and symptoms only self management plans for control of asthma in general practice. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.301.6765.1355
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.