Indexed in

License and use

Citations

Altmetrics

Grant support

The Delphi survey panelists received honoraria compliant with GSK's fair market evaluation for each country. Medical writing support for the development of this article, under the direction of the authors, was provided by Suzan Maboane MSc of Ashfield MedComms, an Inizio company, and was funded by GSK.

Analysis of institutional authors

Share

Asthma control conundrum in clinical practice - Data from a two-stage Delphi survey and literature review

Publicated to:Data in Brief. 50 109422- - 2023-10-01 50(), DOI: 10.1016/j.dib.2023.109422

Authors: Canonica, G.W.; Spanevello, A.; de Llano, L.P.; Ribas, C.D.; Blakey, J.D.; García, G.; Inoue, H.; Dalcolmo, M.; Yang, D.; Mokashi, S.; Kurne, A.; Butta, A.K.

Affiliations

Abstract

Definitions and measures of asthma control used in clinical trials and practice often vary, as highlighted in the manuscript, "Is asthma control more than just an absence of symptoms? An expert consensus statement". Furthermore, the authors discussed differences between patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) in terms of understanding and managing asthma. Given these disparities, there is a need for consensus regarding what constitutes well controlled asthma and, especially, how best it can be measured and recorded. In the current work, we describe our data and provide more detail on the methodology from a two-stage Delphi survey and a structured literature review, which were designed to reach a consensus definition of asthma control and alleviate misalignments between patients and HCPs. Survey data were collected using a two-stage Delphi technique; a method used to collate expert opinions over a series of sequential questionnaires to reach a consensus. The collated Delphi survey data were compared with results from a comprehensive, structured literature review of 216 publications, to assess if there was a correlation between existing guidance and measures of asthma control used in clinical trials and standard clinical practice. In order to collate and interpret findings from the Delphi survey, responses from 82 panelists (73 HCPs and 9 authors) were qualitatively analyzed, quantitatively categorized, and presented as percentages or counts in Excel databases, which are detailed in the current work. Searches conducted using PubMed and Cochrane identified 664 manuscripts, and Embase was used to identify 89 congress abstracts. After applying a stringent screening method using predefined key words, the structured literature review consisted of 185 peer reviewed manuscripts and 31 congress abstracts, and assessed existing guidance and measures of asthma control used in clinical trials. In this publication, we provide further insight into the predefined keywords, search strings, and strategy applied to identify manuscripts and congress abstracts for inclusion/exclusion, and detail methods for data extraction. Together, the data from the Delphi survey and structured literature review aimed to provide greater insights into challenges and approaches in achieving asthma control in clinical practice, with the potential for results to be used to guide a universally accepted definition and measure of asthma control that can be used and understood by patients, HCPs, and researchers. Qualitative and quantitative methodology and analysis from the Delphi survey and literature review search strategy can potentially be used to identify disparities and explore expert opinion and relevant literature in other therapeutic areas to guide a consensus where disparities exist. & COPY; 2023 Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )

Keywords