↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Development and validation of a predictive model of failed stepping-down of inhaled corticosteroids in adult asthmatics

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 Mendeley
Title
Development and validation of a predictive model of failed stepping-down of inhaled corticosteroids in adult asthmatics
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, March 2016
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s98637
Pubmed ID
Authors

Akira Yamasaki, Katsuyuki Tomita, Kazuhiro Kato, Kouji Fukutani, Hiroyuki Sano, Yuji Tohda, Eiji Shimizu

Abstract

Asthma guidelines suggest stepping-down of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) when asthma is stable. To determine outcomes of stepping-down and prediction of outcome after stepping-down of ICSs in controlled adult asthma. We performed a retrospective study on 21-81 year-old hospital-based outpatients with asthma in Japan. Protocol for stepping-down of ICSs was performed according to the GINA guideline. Failure/success of stepping-down is judged as occurring exacerbation or not for stepping-down of ICSs. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to develop a prediction model for failed stepping-down, and then was validated by the leave-one-out cross-validation method. Our model of prediction score was calculated using receiver-operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) analysis. The Nelson-Aalen curve demonstrated time to failure of stepping-down of ICSs. A total of 126 patients with asthma attempted the stepping-down of ICSs according to the guideline. Of patients with follow-up, 97 (77.0%) of stepping-down attempts were successful. Using multivariate logistic regression analysis, comorbidity with rhinitis/rhinosinusitis and phlegm grade were independent predictors of failed stepping-down of ICSs, with odds ratios of 3.8 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-13.3; P=0.04) and 1.3 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-11.5; P=0.04), respectively. These variables were then used to build a prediction score in terms of the prediction of failed stepping-down events. When the two variables were added to form the prediction score, the discriminative power of scores calculated by the prediction model using the AUC was 0.75 (range: 0.62-0.88) for naïve prediction and 0.72 (range: 0.60-0.86) after cross-validation. In the time-to-failure models, cumulative hazard ratio of failed stepping-down have fixed 1 year after stepping-down. Our results suggest that comorbidity with rhinitis/rhinosinusitis and phlegm grade are imperative to predict failed stepping-down of ICSs in controlled patients with adult asthma.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 2 29%
Librarian 1 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 14%
Researcher 1 14%
Unknown 2 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 43%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 14%
Unknown 2 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 March 2016.
All research outputs
#17,793,546
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,165
of 1,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,003
of 298,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#45
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,600 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 298,400 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.