Effectiveness of written action plans for acute asthma: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Self-management is an essential part of achieving asthma control and improving long-term outcomes. While guidelines recommend the provision of written asthma action plans (AAPs), few patients presenting to emergency departments (ED) have one. This systematic review examined if individualized written AAPs reduce relapses in adults following an ED visit for acute asthma. Data sources: Comprehensive searches of seven electronic databases and grey literature were conducted. Study selections: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effectiveness of individualized written AAPs to reduce relapses after ED visits for acute asthma were included. Study quality was determined using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool; intervention fidelity was assessed. Results: From 695 potentially relevant studies, three RCTs were included. The RoB was low in two studies and high in one study; description of intervention fidelity varied across studies. The provision of individualized written AAPs in adults following an ED visit for acute asthma did not reduce the risk of relapse after ED discharge (risk ratio [RR] = 0.66; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.36, 1.23; I2 = 40%). There was a 49% reduction in the risk of relapse after ED discharge when only studies with low RoB were pooled (RR = 0.51; 95% CI: 0.31, 0.83; I2 = 0%). Conclusion: This review did not provide conclusive evidence to support the consideration of individualized written AAPs for the reduction of relapses after an ED visit; however, the low frequency of events, small number of studies and samples, and their methodological quality might play an important role in this overall finding.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".