Identifying asthma in population studies: from single entity to a multi-component approach

Marks, Guy B.

doi:10.1183/09031936.05.00055305

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Defining asthma in population studies continues to generate controversy in the scientific literature [Pearce et al, 1998;Pekkanen and Pearce, 1999;Peat et al, 2001;Marks, 2005;von Hertzen and Haahtela, 2005]. Pekkanen and Pearce [1999] suggest that there are advantages of using different asthma definitions depending on the purpose of the study (i.e., prevalence vs. etiologic studies).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence of asthma by industry and occupation in the U.S. working population

McHugh

Symanski

Pompeii

et al. 2010

American J Industrial Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence of asthma by industry and occupation in the U.S. working population

McHugh

Symanski

Pompeii

et al. 2010

American J Industrial Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is a lack of ‘gold standard’ criterion for asthma for use in epidemiological studies. Marks describes asthma ‘as a syndrome comprised of common features that arises via a number of alternative pathways’ . A range of criteria have been used to identify asthma in epidemiological studies including; parental questionnaires recalling wheeze in the last 12 months, doctor's diagnoses, hospitalizations due to asthma and physiological measures such as airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perinatal factors and respiratory health in children

Brew

Marks

2012

Clin Experimental Allergy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At the present, asthma is considered an “umbrella term”, bringing together a selection of different conditions that share common clinical features such as cough and wheeze, shortness of breath and bronchial obstruction . While the concept of distinct wheezing and asthma endotypes has been proposed, existing guidelines based on clinical symptoms and predictive models are still aimed at a single disease .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of childhood asthma predictive tools: A systematic review

Colicino

Munblit

Minelli

et al. 2019

Clin Experimental Allergy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There is uncertainty about the clinical usefulness of currently available asthma predictive tools. Validation of predictive tools in different populations and clinical settings is an essential requirement for the assessment of their predictive performance, reproducibility and generalizability. We aimed to critically appraise asthma predictive tools which have been validated in external studies. Methods:We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (1946-2017) for all available childhood asthma prediction models and focused on externally validated predictive tools alongside the studies in which they were originally developed. We excluded non-English and nonoriginal studies. PROSPERO registration number is CRD42016035727.Results: From 946 screened papers, eight were included in the review. Statistical approaches for creation of prediction tools included chi-square tests, logistic regression models and the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator. Predictive models were developed and validated in general and high-risk populations. Only three prediction tools were externally validated: the Asthma Predictive Index, the PIAMA and the Leicester asthma prediction tool. A variety of predictors has been tested, but no studies examined the same combination. There was heterogeneity in definition of the primary outcome among development and validation studies, and no objective measurements were used for asthma diagnosis. The performance of tools varied at different ages of outcome assessment. We observed a discrepancy between the development and validation studies in the tools' predictive performance in terms of sensitivity and positive predictive values.Conclusions: Validated asthma predictive tools, reviewed in this paper, provided poor predictive accuracy with performance variation in sensitivity and positive predictive value.

show abstract

Identifying asthma in population studies: from single entity to a multi-component approach

Cited by 8 publications

References 31 publications

Prevalence of asthma by industry and occupation in the U.S. working population

Prevalence of asthma by industry and occupation in the U.S. working population

Perinatal factors and respiratory health in children

Validation of childhood asthma predictive tools: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About