Operational definitions of asthma in recent epidemiological studies are inconsistent.

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Sá-Sousa, A
Data de Publicação: 2014
Outros Autores: Jacinto, T, Azevedo, LF, Morais-Almeida, M, Robalo-Cordeiro, C, Bugalho-Almeida, A, Bousquet, J, Fonseca, JA
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/7409
Resumo: OBJECTIVE: The best combination of questions to define asthma in epidemiological asthma studies is not known. We summarized the operational definitions of asthma used in prevalence studies and empirically assess how asthma prevalence estimates vary depending on the definition used. METHODS: We searched the Thomson Reuters ISI Web of knowledge and included (1) cross-sectional studies (2) on asthma prevalence (3) conducted in the general population and (4) containing an explicit definition of asthma. The search was limited to the 100 most-cited papers or published since January 2010. For each paper, we recorded the asthma definition used and other variables. Then we applied the definitions to the data of the Portuguese National Asthma survey (INAsma) and of the 2005-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) computing asthma prevalence estimates for the different definitions. RESULTS: Of 1738 papers retrieved, 117 were included for analysis. Lifetime asthma, diagnosed asthma and current asthma were defined in 8, 12 and 29 different ways, respectively. By applying definitions of current asthma on INAsma and NHANES data, the prevalence ranged between 5.3%-24.4% and 1.1%-17.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable heterogeneity in the definitions of asthma used in epidemiological studies leading to highly variable estimates of asthma prevalence. Studies to inform a standardized operational definition are needed. Meanwhile, we propose a set of questions to be reported when defining asthma in epidemiological studies.
id RCAP_2e39d45723aab00852d79ff1d9986a92
oai_identifier_str oai:comum.rcaap.pt:10400.26/7409
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Operational definitions of asthma in recent epidemiological studies are inconsistent.AsthmaAsmaOBJECTIVE: The best combination of questions to define asthma in epidemiological asthma studies is not known. We summarized the operational definitions of asthma used in prevalence studies and empirically assess how asthma prevalence estimates vary depending on the definition used. METHODS: We searched the Thomson Reuters ISI Web of knowledge and included (1) cross-sectional studies (2) on asthma prevalence (3) conducted in the general population and (4) containing an explicit definition of asthma. The search was limited to the 100 most-cited papers or published since January 2010. For each paper, we recorded the asthma definition used and other variables. Then we applied the definitions to the data of the Portuguese National Asthma survey (INAsma) and of the 2005-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) computing asthma prevalence estimates for the different definitions. RESULTS: Of 1738 papers retrieved, 117 were included for analysis. Lifetime asthma, diagnosed asthma and current asthma were defined in 8, 12 and 29 different ways, respectively. By applying definitions of current asthma on INAsma and NHANES data, the prevalence ranged between 5.3%-24.4% and 1.1%-17.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable heterogeneity in the definitions of asthma used in epidemiological studies leading to highly variable estimates of asthma prevalence. Studies to inform a standardized operational definition are needed. Meanwhile, we propose a set of questions to be reported when defining asthma in epidemiological studies.Repositório ComumSá-Sousa, AJacinto, TAzevedo, LFMorais-Almeida, MRobalo-Cordeiro, CBugalho-Almeida, ABousquet, JFonseca, JA2015-01-04T19:51:27Z20142014-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/7409engClin Transl Allergy. 2014 Aug 4;4:24.10.1186/2045-7022-4-24info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2022-12-20T14:25:01Zoai:comum.rcaap.pt:10400.26/7409Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T16:22:39.950146Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Operational definitions of asthma in recent epidemiological studies are inconsistent.
title Operational definitions of asthma in recent epidemiological studies are inconsistent.
spellingShingle Operational definitions of asthma in recent epidemiological studies are inconsistent.
Sá-Sousa, A
Asthma
Asma
title_short Operational definitions of asthma in recent epidemiological studies are inconsistent.
title_full Operational definitions of asthma in recent epidemiological studies are inconsistent.
title_fullStr Operational definitions of asthma in recent epidemiological studies are inconsistent.
title_full_unstemmed Operational definitions of asthma in recent epidemiological studies are inconsistent.
title_sort Operational definitions of asthma in recent epidemiological studies are inconsistent.
author Sá-Sousa, A
author_facet Sá-Sousa, A
Jacinto, T
Azevedo, LF
Morais-Almeida, M
Robalo-Cordeiro, C
Bugalho-Almeida, A
Bousquet, J
Fonseca, JA
author_role author
author2 Jacinto, T
Azevedo, LF
Morais-Almeida, M
Robalo-Cordeiro, C
Bugalho-Almeida, A
Bousquet, J
Fonseca, JA
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Repositório Comum
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Sá-Sousa, A
Jacinto, T
Azevedo, LF
Morais-Almeida, M
Robalo-Cordeiro, C
Bugalho-Almeida, A
Bousquet, J
Fonseca, JA
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Asthma
Asma
topic Asthma
Asma
description OBJECTIVE: The best combination of questions to define asthma in epidemiological asthma studies is not known. We summarized the operational definitions of asthma used in prevalence studies and empirically assess how asthma prevalence estimates vary depending on the definition used. METHODS: We searched the Thomson Reuters ISI Web of knowledge and included (1) cross-sectional studies (2) on asthma prevalence (3) conducted in the general population and (4) containing an explicit definition of asthma. The search was limited to the 100 most-cited papers or published since January 2010. For each paper, we recorded the asthma definition used and other variables. Then we applied the definitions to the data of the Portuguese National Asthma survey (INAsma) and of the 2005-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) computing asthma prevalence estimates for the different definitions. RESULTS: Of 1738 papers retrieved, 117 were included for analysis. Lifetime asthma, diagnosed asthma and current asthma were defined in 8, 12 and 29 different ways, respectively. By applying definitions of current asthma on INAsma and NHANES data, the prevalence ranged between 5.3%-24.4% and 1.1%-17.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable heterogeneity in the definitions of asthma used in epidemiological studies leading to highly variable estimates of asthma prevalence. Studies to inform a standardized operational definition are needed. Meanwhile, we propose a set of questions to be reported when defining asthma in epidemiological studies.
publishDate 2014
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2014
2014-01-01T00:00:00Z
2015-01-04T19:51:27Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/7409
url http://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/7409
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Clin Transl Allergy. 2014 Aug 4;4:24.
10.1186/2045-7022-4-24
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1817554064978739200