Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 362

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomised comparison of guided self management and traditional treatment of asthma over one year

Open access
Lahdensuo, Aarne, Haahtela, Tari, Herrala, Jaakko, Kava, Tuomo, Kiviranta, Kirsti, Kuusisto, Paula, Peramaki, Erkki, Poussa, Tuija, Saarelainen, Seppo, Svahn, Thore·1996·BMJ

Abstract

Objective : To compare the efficacy of self management of asthma with traditional treatment. Design : 12 month prospective randomised trial. Setting : Outpatient clinics in Finland. Subjects : 115 patients with mild to moderately severe asthma. Interventions : Patient education and adjustment of anti-inflammatory therapy guided by peak flow measurements. Main outcome measures : Unscheduled admissions to hospital and outpatient visits, days off work, courses of antibiotics and prednisolone, lung function, and quality of life. Results : The mean number of unscheduled visits to ambulatory care facilities (0.5 v 1.0), days off work (2.8 v 4.8), and courses of antibiotics (0.4 v 0.9) and prednisolone (0.4 v 1.0) per patient were lower and the quality of life score (16.6 v 8.4 at 12 months) higher in the self management group than in the traditionally treated group. In both groups admissions for asthma were rare. Conclusions : Self management reduces incidents caused by asthma and improves quality of life. Key messages: Key messages This trial of 115 patients with mild to moderately severe disease randomised half to a traditional care and half to a self management programme consisting of education about asthma and daily peak flow readings Intervention thresholds of < 85% of the optimal peak flow for doubling the dose of inhaled steroid for two weeks and of < 70% of the optimal peak flow for starting a course of oral steroids worked well The self management group had fewer incidents (consultations, days off work, courses of prednisolone or antibiotics) than the traditionally treated group and better quality of life scores Adherence of patients to the self management instructions was better than expected

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.312.7033.748

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 362

Metadata

Authors
Lahdensuo, A., Haahtela, T., Herrala, J., Kava, T., Kiviranta, K., Kuusisto, P., Peramaki, E., Poussa, T., Saarelainen, S., & Svahn, T.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1996-03-23
Volume
312
Issue
7033
Pages
748-752
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W1966983275
Cited by
362
References
2
FWCI
20.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Randomised comparison of guided self management and traditional treatment of asthma over one year. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.312.7033.748
The paper
Lahdensuo, A., Haahtela, T., Herrala, J., Kava, T., Kiviranta, K., Kuusisto, P., Peramaki, E., Poussa, T., Saarelainen, S., & Svahn, T. (1996). Randomised comparison of guided self management and traditional treatment of asthma over one year. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7033.748

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.