Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 483

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Pathological features and inhaled corticosteroid response of eosinophilic and non-eosinophilic asthma

Open access
Berry, M., Morgan, A., Shaw, D. E, Parker, D., Green, R., Brightling, C., Bradding, P., Wardlaw, A. J, Pavord, I. D·2007·Thorax

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Non-eosinophilic asthma is a potentially important clinicopathological phenotype since there is evidence that it responds poorly to inhaled corticosteroid therapy. However, little is known about the underlying airway immunopathology and there are no data from placebo-controlled studies examining the effect of inhaled corticosteroids. METHODS: Airway immunopathology was investigated using induced sputum, bronchial biopsies, bronchial wash and bronchoalveolar lavage in 12 patients with symptomatic eosinophilic asthma, 11 patients with non-eosinophilic asthma and 10 healthy controls. The patients with non-eosinophilic asthma and 6 different patients with eosinophilic asthma entered a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study in which the effects of inhaled mometasone 400 microg once daily for 8 weeks on airway responsiveness and asthma quality of life were investigated. RESULTS: Patients with non-eosinophilic asthma had absence of eosinophils in the mucosa (median 4.4 cells/mm(2) vs 23 cells/mm(2) in eosinophilic asthma and 0 cells/mm(2) in normal controls; p = 0.03) and normal subepithelial layer thickness (5.8 microm vs 10.3 microm in eosinophilic asthma and 5.1 microm in controls, p = 0.002). Non-eosinophilic and eosinophilic asthma groups had increased mast cell numbers in the airway smooth muscle compared with normal controls (9 vs 8 vs 0 cells/mm(2), p = 0.016). Compared with placebo, 8 weeks of treatment with inhaled mometasone led to less improvement in methacholine PC(20) (0.5 vs 5.5 doubling concentrations, 95% CI of difference 1.1 to 9.1; p = 0.018) and asthma quality of life (0.2 vs 1.0 points, 95% CI of difference 0.27 to 1.43; p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Non-eosinophilic asthma represents a pathologically distinct disease phenotype which is characterised by the absence of airway eosinophilia, normal subepithelial layer thickness and a poor short-term response to treatment with inhaled corticosteroids.

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/thx.2006.073429

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 483

Metadata

Authors
Berry, M., Morgan, A., Shaw, D. E., Parker, D., Green, R., Brightling, C., Bradding, P., Wardlaw, A. J., & Pavord, I. D.
Venue
Thorax
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2007-12-01
Volume
62
Issue
12
Pages
1043-1049
ISSN
0040-6376 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2145977358
Cited by
483
References
1
FWCI
13.45
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: Pathological features and inhaled corticosteroid response of eosinophilic and non-eosinophilic asthma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/thx.2006.073429
The paper
Berry, M., Morgan, A., Shaw, D. E., Parker, D., Green, R., Brightling, C., Bradding, P., Wardlaw, A. J., & Pavord, I. D. (2007). Pathological features and inhaled corticosteroid response of eosinophilic and non-eosinophilic asthma. Thorax. https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.2006.073429

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.