Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 321

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Evaluation of peak flow and symptoms only self management plans for control of asthma in general practice.

Open access
Charlton, I, Charlton, G, Broomfield, J, Mullee, M A·1990·BMJ

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.301.6765.1355

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 321

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.