Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 488

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sensitisation to airborne moulds and severity of asthma: cross sectional study from European Community respiratory health survey

Open access
Zureik, Mahmoud, Neukirch, Catherine, Leynaert, Bénédicte, Liard, Renata, Bousquet, Jean, Neukirch, Françoise·2002·BMJ

Abstract

Objective: To assess whether the severity of asthma is associated with sensitisation to airborne moulds rather than to other seasonal or perennial allergens. Design: Multicentre epidemiological survey in 30 centres. Setting: European Community respiratory health survey. Participants: 1132 adults aged 20-44 years with current asthma and with skin prick test results. Main outcome measure: Severity of asthma according to score based on forced expiratory volume in one second, number of asthma attacks, hospital admissions for breathing problems, and use of corticosteroids in past 12 months. Results: The frequency of sensitisation to moulds ( Alternaria alternata or Cladosporium herbarum , or both) increased significantly with increasing asthma severity (odds ratio 2.34 (95% confidence interval 1.56 to 3.52) for either for severe v mild asthma). This association existed in all of the study areas (gathered into regions), although there were differences in the frequency of sensitisation. There was no association between asthma severity and sensitisation to pollens or cats. Sensitisation to Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus was also positively associated with severity. In multivariable logistic regressions including sensitisation to moulds, pollens, D pteronyssinus , and cats simultaneously, the odds ratios for sensitisation to moulds were 1.48 (0.97 to 2.26) for moderate v mild asthma and 2.16 (1.37 to 3.35) for severe v mild asthma (P<0.001 for trend). Conclusions: Sensitisation to moulds is a powerful risk factor for severe asthma in adults. This should be taken into account in primary prevention, management, and patients' education.

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.325.7361.411

Cites

31 of 31 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 31 references

Cited by

See all 488

Metadata

Authors
Zureik, M., Neukirch, C., Leynaert, B., Liard, R., Bousquet, J., & Neukirch, F.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2002-08-24
Volume
325
Issue
7361
Pages
411
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2152563928
Cited by
488
References
31
FWCI
11.02
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: Sensitisation to airborne moulds and severity of asthma: cross sectional study from European Community respiratory health survey. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.325.7361.411
The paper
Zureik, M., Neukirch, C., Leynaert, B., Liard, R., Bousquet, J., & Neukirch, F. (2002). Sensitisation to airborne moulds and severity of asthma: cross sectional study from European Community respiratory health survey. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7361.411

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.