Evaluating the effectiveness of asthma treatment in real-life practice

Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 297-305

  Pearson, Mike ^a,b   Barnes, Neil ^c   Thomas, Mike ^d   Tate, Helen ^e   Simnett, Sarah ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL AINTREE   (United Kingdom)

^b ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS   (United Kingdom)

^c LONDON CHEST HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^e New House Farm   (United Kingdom)

^f Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Asthma; Audit; Montelukast; Retrospective

Indexed keywords

AMINOPHYLLINE; ANTIHISTAMINIC AGENT; BECLOMETASONE DIPROPIONATE; BETA ADRENERGIC RECEPTOR STIMULATING AGENT; BUDESONIDE; CORTICOSTEROID; CROMOGLYCATE DISODIUM; FLUTICASONE PROPIONATE; IPRATROPIUM BROMIDE; LEUKOTRIENE RECEPTOR BLOCKING AGENT; LONG ACTING DRUG; MONTELUKAST; NEDOCROMIL; OXITROPIUM BROMIDE; PLACEBO; STEROID; THEOPHYLLINE;

ARTICLE; ASTHMA; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; DATA ANALYSIS; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG TOLERABILITY; EVALUATION; FORCED EXPIRATORY VOLUME; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; LUNG FUNCTION TEST; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVATION; OBSERVER VARIATION; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PATIENT CARE; PILOT STUDY; POSTMARKETING SURVEILLANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RELIABILITY; REPRODUCIBILITY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SIDE EFFECT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ACETATES; ANTI-ASTHMATIC AGENTS; ASTHMA; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; PILOT PROJECTS; QUINOLINES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS;

EID: 3042532219     PISSN: 13561294     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2003.00434.x     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Baumgartner R.A., Martinez G., Edelman J.M. et al. (2003) Distribution of therapeutic response in asthma control between oral montelukast and inhaled beclomethasone. The European Respiratory Journal 21, 129-134.
2. Benson K. & Hartz A.J. (2000) A comparison of observational studies and randomized controlled trials. The New England Journal of Medicine 342, 1878-1886.
3. Chalmers T.C., Celano P., Sacks H.S. & Smith H. Jr (1983) Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. The New England Journal of Medicine 309, 1358-1361.
4. Concato J., Shah N. & Horwitz R.I. (2000) Randomized controlled trials, observational studies and the hierarchy of research designs. The New England Journal of Medicine 342, 1887-1892.
5. Elphick H.E., Tan A., Ashby D. & Smyth R. (2002) Systematic reviews and lifelong diseases. British Medical Journal 325, 381-384.
6. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group (1992) Evidence-based medicine: a new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. The Journal of the American Medical Association 268, 2420-2425.
7. Feinstein A.R. (1989) Epidemiological analyses of causation: the unlearned scientific lessons of randomized trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 42, 481-489.
8. Gompertz P., Dennis M., Hopkins A. & Ebrahim S. (1994) Development and reliability of the Royal College of Physicians stroke audit. Age and Ageing 23, 378-383.
9. Hagelin E.M.H. (1999) Coding data from child health records: the relationship between interrater agreement and interpretative burden. Journal of Pediatric Nursing 14 (5), 313-321.
10. Jarvis B. & Markham A. (2000) Montelukast: a review of its therapeutic potential in persistent asthma. Drugs 59 (4), 891-928.
11. Landis J.R. & Koch G.G. (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 59-174.
12. Price D., Ryan D., Pearce L. & Bride F. (1999) The air study: asthma in real life. Journal of Asthma 4, 74-78.
13. Robinson D. (2001) Current treatments for asthma in primary care. Prescriber 12 (17), 46-55.
14. Rudd A., Irwin P., Rutledge Z., Lowe D., Wade D., Morris R. & Pearson M. (1999) The national sentinel audit of stroke a tool for raising standards of care. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London 33, 460-465.
15. Rudd A.G., Lowe D., Irwin P., Rutledge Z. & Pearson M. (2001) National stroke audit - a tool for change? Quality in Health Care 10, 141-151.