Cited by 118Indoor Air Quality and Microbial ExposureAsthma and respiratory diseasesOccupational exposure and asthma

Effects on patients with asthma of eradicating visible indoor mould: a randomised controlled trial

Open access
Burr, M L, Matthews, I P, Arthur, R A, Watson, H L, Gregory, C J, Dunstan, F D J, Palmer, S R·2007·Thorax

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It is not clear whether associations between respiratory symptoms and indoor mould are causal. A randomised controlled trial was conducted to see whether asthma improves when indoor mould is removed. METHODS: Houses of patients with asthma were randomly allocated into two groups. In one group, indoor mould was removed, fungicide was applied and a fan was installed in the loft. In the control group, intervention was delayed for 12 months. Questionnaires were administered and peak expiratory flow rate was measured at baseline, 6 months and 12 months. RESULTS: Eighty-one houses were allocated to the intervention group and 83 to the control group; 95 participants in 68 intervention houses and 87 in 63 control houses supplied follow-up information. Peak expiratory flow rate variability declined in both groups, with no significant differences between them. At 6 months, significantly more of the intervention group showed a net improvement in wheeze affecting activities (difference between groups 25%, 95% CI 3% to 47%; p = 0.028), perceived improvement of breathing (52%, 95% CI 30% to 74%; p<0.0001) and perceived reduction in medication (59%, 95% CI 35% to 81%; p<0.0001). By 12 months the intervention group showed significantly greater reductions than the controls in preventer and reliever use, and more improvement in rhinitis (24%, 95% CI 9% to 39%; p = 0.001) and rhinoconjunctivitis (20%, 95% CI 5% to 36%; p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Although there was no objective evidence of benefit, symptoms of asthma and rhinitis improved and medication use declined following removal of indoor mould. It is unlikely that this was entirely a placebo effect.

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/thx.2006.070847

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is substantial evidence that indoor allergens generated by house dust mite, mold and cat are triggers for both childhood and adult asthma, especially in those sensitized.

    “There is substantial evidence to suggest that indoor allergens generated by house dust mite, mold and cat are triggers for both childhood and adult asthma, especially in those sensitized (100–102).”

    From Epidemiology of Asthma in Children and Adults (2019) · cites this paper as [101]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Arthur RA, Gregory CJ, Matthews IP. The amount of surface mould contamination in homes in South Wales and the prevalence and relative abundance of differing mould genera. In: de Oliveira Fernandes E, Gameiro da Silva M, Rosado Pinto J, eds. Healthy buildings 2006: creating a healthy indoor environment for people, Proceedings of International Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Vol II, 4-8 June 2006, Lisbon, 2006:325-8.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Burr, M. L., Matthews, I. P., Arthur, R. A., Watson, H. L., Gregory, C. J., Dunstan, F. D. J., & Palmer, S. R.
Affiliations
Cardiff University (GB)
Corresponding author
Burr, M L
Venue
Thorax
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2007-09-01
Volume
62
Issue
9
Pages
767-772
ISSN
0040-6376 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2119104852
Cited by
118
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
FWCI
7.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Thorax (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Office of Research and Development
  • Asthma and Lung UK
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Indoor Air Quality and Microbial Exposure
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Asthma and respiratory diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Occupational exposure and asthma
Keywords
asthma, indoor mold, fungicides, peak expiratory flow variability, wheezing, rhinitis, rhinoconjunctivitis, asthma medication use, indoor air quality, placebo effect
MeSH terms
Adult, Air Conditioning, Asthma, Female, Fungi, Household Articles, Housing, Humans, Humidity, Male, Respiration, Temperature, Air Pollution, Indoor

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