Patient- and proxy-reported outcome measures instruments for the assessment of asthma control among adult and pediatric population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Asthma is a chronic airways inflammatory disease considered as a serious public health problem. Since asthma is a lifelong condition, the assessment of its control is important to achieve a better self-management. Based on the advances of the assessment tools, many instruments have been developed to assess asthma control. Therefore, this systematic review aims to assess the measurement properties, the methodological quality, and the content of outcome measures of the available patient- and proxy-reported asthma control instruments. METHODS: This is a systematic review protocol of the measurement properties of asthma control patient- and proxy-reported outcome instruments. Database searches will be primarily performed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, ScienceDirect and PsycINFO. A manual search of websites considered databases for questionnaires and reference lists will also be conducted. The methodological quality of the studies and the measurement properties will be critically appraised using the COSMIN risk of bias (RoB) checklist. The content of all measurement instruments will be compared based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health framework. RESULTS: The findings from this systematic review will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific conferences. CONCLUSION: The proposed systematic review will produce a comprehensive evaluation of the measurement properties of the currently available asthma control instruments for both adult and pediatric populations. We aim to help researchers and practitioners in their choice of an adequate instrument and to highlight the gaps in currently available tools. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019126042.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.051 | 0.180 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".