BACKGROUND: Respiratory symptoms are commonly used to assess the impact of patient-centered interventions. OBJECTIVE: At the request of National Institutes of Health (NIH) institutes and other federal agencies, an expert group was convened to propose which measurements of asthma symptoms should be used as a standardized measure in future clinical research studies. METHODS: Asthma symptom instruments were classified as daily diaries (prospectively recording symptoms between research visits) or retrospective questionnaires (completed at research visits). We conducted a systematic search in PubMed and a search for articles that cited key studies describing development of instruments. We classified outcome instruments as either core (required in future studies), supplemental (used according to study aims and standardized), or emerging (requiring validation and standardization). This work was discussed at an NIH-organized workshop in March 2010 and finalized in September 2011. RESULTS: Four instruments (3 daily diaries, 1 for adults and 2 for children; and 1 retrospective questionnaire for adults) were identified. Minimal clinically important differences have not been established for these instruments, and validation studies were only conducted in a limited number of patient populations. Validity of existing instruments may not be generalizable across racial-ethnic or other subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: An evaluation of symptoms should be a core asthma outcome measure in clinical research. However, available instruments have limitations that preclude selection of a core instrument. The working group participants propose validation studies in diverse populations, comparisons of diaries versus retrospective questionnaires, and evaluations of symptom assessment alone versus composite scores of asthma control. Published by Mosby, Inc.
BACKGROUND: Respiratory symptoms are commonly used to assess the impact of patient-centered interventions. OBJECTIVE: At the request of National Institutes of Health (NIH) institutes and other federal agencies, an expert group was convened to propose which measurements of asthma symptoms should be used as a standardized measure in future clinical research studies. METHODS: Asthma symptom instruments were classified as daily diaries (prospectively recording symptoms between research visits) or retrospective questionnaires (completed at research visits). We conducted a systematic search in PubMed and a search for articles that cited key studies describing development of instruments. We classified outcome instruments as either core (required in future studies), supplemental (used according to study aims and standardized), or emerging (requiring validation and standardization). This work was discussed at an NIH-organized workshop in March 2010 and finalized in September 2011. RESULTS: Four instruments (3 daily diaries, 1 for adults and 2 for children; and 1 retrospective questionnaire for adults) were identified. Minimal clinically important differences have not been established for these instruments, and validation studies were only conducted in a limited number of patient populations. Validity of existing instruments may not be generalizable across racial-ethnic or other subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: An evaluation of symptoms should be a core asthma outcome measure in clinical research. However, available instruments have limitations that preclude selection of a core instrument. The working group participants propose validation studies in diverse populations, comparisons of diaries versus retrospective questionnaires, and evaluations of symptom assessment alone versus composite scores of asthma control. Published by Mosby, Inc.
Authors: N C Santanello; C Demuro-Mercon; G Davies; N Ostrom; M Noonan; A Rooklin; B Knorr Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Stanley Szefler; Scott Weiss; James Tonascia; N Franklin Adkinson; Bruce Bender; Reuben Cherniack; Michele Donithan; H William Kelly; Joseph Reisman; Gail G Shapiro; Alice L Sternberg; Robert Strunk; Virginia Taggart; Mark Van Natta; Robert Wise; Margaret Wu; Robert Zeiger Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-10-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: B Knorr; H H Nguyen; G L Kearns; C Villaran; M L Boza; T F Reiss; J D Rogers; J Zhang; P Larson; S Spielberg Journal: J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 3.126
Authors: Robert A Wise; Susan J Bartlett; Ellen D Brown; Mario Castro; Rubin Cohen; Janet T Holbrook; Charles G Irvin; Cynthia S Rand; Marianna M Sockrider; Elizabeth A Sugar Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2009-07-25 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Jonathan D Campbell; Marissa Brooks; Patrick Hosokawa; June Robinson; Lin Song; James Krieger Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-08-13 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Wanda Phipatanakul; Petros Koutrakis; Brent A Coull; Choong-Min Kang; Jack M Wolfson; Stephen T Ferguson; Carter R Petty; Mihail Samnaliev; Amparito Cunningham; William J Sheehan; Jonathan M Gaffin; Sachin N Baxi; Peggy S Lai; Perdita Permaul; Liming Liang; Peter S Thorne; Gary Adamkiewicz; Kasey J Brennan; Andrea A Baccarelli; Diane R Gold Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2017-06-12 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Mary R Janevic; Shelley Stoll; Margaret Wilkin; Peter X K Song; Alan Baptist; Marielena Lara; Gilberto Ramos-Valencia; Tyra Bryant-Stephens; Victoria Persky; Kimberly Uyeda; Julie Kennedy Lesch; Wen Wang; Floyd J Malveaux Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2016-09-15 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Rui-Sheng Wang; Damien C Croteau-Chonka; Edwin K Silverman; J Loscalzo; Scott T Weiss; Kathryn T Hall Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2019-10-28 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Stanley J Szefler; James F Chmiel; Anne M Fitzpatrick; George Giacoia; Thomas P Green; Daniel J Jackson; Heber C Nielsen; Wanda Phipatanakul; Hengameh H Raissy Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2013-11-28 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Michael D Cabana; Susan J Kunselman; Sharmilee M Nyenhuis; Michael E Wechsler Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 10.793