Cited by 100Asthma and respiratory diseasesStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research

Different definitions in childhood asthma: how dependable is the dependent variable?

Open access
Van Wonderen, K.E., Van Der Mark, L.B., Mohrs, J., Bindels, P.J.E., Van Aalderen, W.M.C., Ter Riet, G.·2010·European Respiratory Journal

Abstract

There is abundant literature on how to select and statistically deal with predictors in prediction models. Less attention has been paid to the choice of the outcome. We assessed the impact of different asthma definitions on prevalence estimates and on the prediction model's performances. We searched PubMed and extracted data of definitions used to diagnose childhood asthma (between 6 and 18 yrs) in cohort studies. Next, using data from an ongoing cohort study (n = 186), we constructed and compared four prediction models which all predict asthma at age 6 yrs, using a fixed set of predictors and four different definitions in turn. We defined an area of clinical indecision (posterior probability between 25% and 60%) and calculated the number of children who remained inside this area. 122 papers yielded 60 different definitions. Prevalence estimates varied between 15.1% and 51.1% depending on the asthma definition used. The percentage of children whose posterior asthma probability was in the area of clinical indecision varied from 14.9% to 65.3%. Variation in definitions and its effect on the performance of prediction models may be another source of otherwise inexplicable variation in daily clinical decision making. More uniformity of operational asthma definitions seems needed.

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 · 10.1183/09031936.00154409

Cites

29 of 29 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?

  • Agreement between four seemingly very similar and commonly used definitions of childhood asthma was overall relatively low (61%).

    “As an example, the above study has shown that the agreement between four seemingly very similar and commonly used definitions was overall relatively low (61%)”

    From Epidemiology of Asthma in Children and Adults (2019) · cites this paper as [17]

  • Well-over a third of children in a study could move from being considered asthma cases to controls depending on the definition used.

    “and well-over a third of children in a study could move from being considered “asthma cases” to “controls” depending on the definition used (17).”

    From Epidemiology of Asthma in Children and Adults (2019) · cites this paper as [17]

  • As many as 60 different definitions of childhood asthma have been used across 122 published studies.

    “Despite attempts to reach a consensus definition for epidemiological studies, as many as 60 different definitions of “childhood asthma” have been used across 122 published studies (17).”

    From Epidemiology of Asthma in Children and Adults (2019) · cites this paper as [17]

  • The multiplicity in the way the primary outcome is defined can have a substantial impact on the estimated prevalence and risk factors.

    “Although some of these definitions may appear almost identical, the multiplicity in the way the primary outcome is defined can have a substantial impact on the estimated prevalence and risk factors.”

    From Epidemiology of Asthma in Children and Adults (2019) · cites this paper as [17]

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

1 of the 30 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Van Wonderen, K. E., Van Der Mark, L. B., Mohrs, J., Bindels, P. J. E., Van Aalderen, W. M. C., & Ter Riet, G.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
Venue
European Respiratory Journal
Published
2009-12-23
Volume
36
Issue
1
Pages
48-56
ISSN
  • 0903-1936 (ISSN-L)
  • 1399-3003
OpenAlex
W2144150352
Cited by
100
References
30
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 10
FWCI
3.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Respiratory Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Asthma and respiratory diseases
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Keywords
childhood asthma, asthma definition, outcome definitions, asthma prevalence, prediction model, posterior probability, asthma diagnosis, clinical decision-making
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Asthma, Child, Humans, Cohort Studies, Prevalence, Logistic Models

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