OBJECTIVE: To determine the performance characteristics of the Preschool Respiratory Assessment Measure (PRAM) in preschool and school-aged children with acute asthma. STUDY DESIGN: In a prospective cohort study, we examined the validity, responsiveness, and reliability of the PRAM in children aged 2 to 17 years with acute asthma. The study involved more than 100 nurses and physicians who recorded the PRAM on triage, after initial bronchodilation, and at disposition. Predictive validity and responsiveness were examined using disposition as outcome. RESULTS: The PRAM was recorded in 81% (n = 782) of patients at triage. The PRAM at triage and after initial bronchodilation showed a strong association with admission (r = 0.4 and 0.5, respectively; P < .0001), thus supporting its ability to distinguish across severity levels. The responsiveness coefficient of 0.7 indicated good ability to identify change after bronchodilation. The PRAM showed good internal consistency (Cronbach alpha = 0.71) and inter-rater reliability (r = 0.78) for all patients and across all age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Good performance characteristics were observed in all age groups, making the PRAM an attractive score for assessing asthma severity and response to treatment.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the performance characteristics of the Preschool Respiratory Assessment Measure (PRAM) in preschool and school-aged children with acute asthma. STUDY DESIGN: In a prospective cohort study, we examined the validity, responsiveness, and reliability of the PRAM in children aged 2 to 17 years with acute asthma. The study involved more than 100 nurses and physicians who recorded the PRAM on triage, after initial bronchodilation, and at disposition. Predictive validity and responsiveness were examined using disposition as outcome. RESULTS: The PRAM was recorded in 81% (n = 782) of patients at triage. The PRAM at triage and after initial bronchodilation showed a strong association with admission (r = 0.4 and 0.5, respectively; P < .0001), thus supporting its ability to distinguish across severity levels. The responsiveness coefficient of 0.7 indicated good ability to identify change after bronchodilation. The PRAM showed good internal consistency (Cronbach alpha = 0.71) and inter-rater reliability (r = 0.78) for all patients and across all age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Good performance characteristics were observed in all age groups, making the PRAM an attractive score for assessing asthma severity and response to treatment.
Authors: Sanjit Bhogal; Jean Bourbeau; David McGillivray; Andrea Benedetti; Susan Bartlett; Francine Ducharme Journal: Can Respir J Date: 2010 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.409
Authors: Mohamed S Al-Moamary; Sami A Alhaider; Abdullah A Alangari; Mohammed O Al Ghobain; Mohammed O Zeitouni; Majdy M Idrees; Abdullah F Alanazi; Adel S Al-Harbi; Abdullah A Yousef; Hassan S Alorainy; Mohamed S Al-Hajjaj Journal: Ann Thorac Med Date: 2019 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.219
Authors: Donald H Arnold; Tebeb Gebretsadik; Thomas J Abramo; Karel G Moons; James R Sheller; Tina V Hartert Journal: Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol Date: 2011-04-22 Impact factor: 6.347
Authors: Paul E Moore; Jason T Poston; Debra Boyer; Emily Barsky; Jonathan Gaffin; Kathleen B Boyne; Kristie R Ross; Laura Beth Mann Dosier; Timothy J Vece; Alicia M Casey; Sebastian K Welsh; J Wells Logan; Edward G Shepherd; Pelton A Phinzy; Howard B Panitch; Christina M Papantonakis; Eric D Austin; Amir B Orandi; Maleewan Kitcharoensakkul; Mark K Abe; Amjad Horani; Jordan S Rettig; Jessica Pittman Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2017-08
Authors: Anab R Lehr; Martha L McKinney; Serge Gouin; Jean-Guy Blais; Martin V Pusic; Francine M Ducharme Journal: Can Respir J Date: 2013-09-17 Impact factor: 2.409