The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
External validity of randomised controlled trials in asthma: to whom do the results of the trials apply?
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Asthma is a heterogeneous disease with a wide range of clinical phenotypes, not all of which may be encompassed in the subjects included in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). This makes it difficult for clinicians to know to what extent the evidence derived from RCTs applies to a given patient. AIM: To calculate the proportion of individuals with asthma who would have been eligible for the major asthma RCTs from the data of a random community survey of respiratory health. METHODS: A postal survey was sent to 3500 randomly selected individuals aged 25-75 years. Respondents were invited to complete a detailed respiratory questionnaire and pulmonary function testing. Participants with current asthma were assessed against the eligibility criteria of the 17 major asthma RCTs cited in the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines. FINDINGS: A total of 749 participants completed the full survey, of whom 179 had current asthma. A median 4% of participants with current asthma (range 0-36%) met the eligibility criteria for the included RCTs. A median 6% (range 0-43%) of participants with current asthma on treatment met the eligibility criteria. INTERPRETATION: This study shows that the major asthma RCTs on which the GINA guidelines are based may have limited external validity as they have been performed on highly selected patient populations. Most of the participants with current asthma on treatment in the community would not have been eligible for these RCTs.
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
Cites
Vestbo, J., Hurd, S. S., Agustí, A. G., Jones, P. W., Vogelmeier, C., Anzueto, A., Barnes, P. J., Fabbri, L. M., Martinez, F. J., Nishimura, M., et al. (2013) · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1164/rccm.201204-0596pp · Cited by 15,983
Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5 · Cited by 4,826
External validity of randomised controlled trials: “To whom do the results of this trial apply?”
Rothwell, P. M. (2005) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(04)17670-8 · Cited by 2,544
Representation of the Elderly, Women, and Minorities in Heart Failure Clinical Trials
Heiat, A., Gross, C. P., & Krumholz, H. M. (2002) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.162.15.1682 · Cited by 723 · cited 1×
“This last requirement is not always met and it is recognized that older adults, women and ethnic minorities may be underrepresented in RCTs.(2-5) Design considerations often lead to RCTs that are performed in highly selected patient populations such as those with the most typical features of a disease, or those most l…”
Cited by
The PRECIS-2 tool: designing trials that are fit for purpose
Loudon, K., Treweek, S., Sullivan, F., Donnan, P., Thorpe, K. E., & Zwarenstein, M. (2015) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.h2147 · Cited by 1,846
After asthma: redefining airways diseases
Pavord, I. D., Beasley, R., Agusti, A., Anderson, G. P., Bel, E., Brusselle, G., Cullinan, P., Custovic, A., Ducharme, F. M., Fahy, J. V., et al. (2018) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)30879-6 · Cited by 1,073
Self-citationKennedy-Martin, T., Curtis, S., Faries, D., Robinson, S., & Johnston, J. (2015) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-015-1023-4 · Cited by 878
Ethical Machine Learning in Healthcare
Chen, I. Y., Pierson, E., Rose, S., Joshi, S., Ferryman, K., & Ghassemi, M. (2021) · Annual Review of Biomedical Data Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-biodatasci-092820-114757 · Cited by 645
How to assess the external validity of therapeutic trials: a conceptual approach
Dekkers, O. M., Elm, E. V., Algra, A., Romijn, J. A., & Vandenbroucke, J. P. (2010) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyp174 · Cited by 219
Metadata
- Authors
- Travers, J., Marsh, S., Williams, M., Weatherall, M., Caldwell, B., Shirtcliffe, P., Aldington, S., & Beasley, R.
- Venue
- Thorax
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2007-03-01
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 219-223
- ISSN
- 0040-6376 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2019258544
- Cited by
- 310
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 6.08
- 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
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.