↓ Skip to main content

FourFold Asthma Study (FAST): a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial evaluating the clinical cost-effectiveness of temporarily quadrupling the dose of inhaled steroid to prevent asthma…

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
FourFold Asthma Study (FAST): a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial evaluating the clinical cost-effectiveness of temporarily quadrupling the dose of inhaled steroid to prevent asthma exacerbations
Published in
Trials, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13063-016-1608-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew Skeggs, Tricia McKeever, Lelia Duley, Eleanor Mitchell, Lucy Bradshaw, Kevin Mortimer, Samantha Walker, Steve Parrott, Andrew Wilson, Ian Pavord, Chris Brightling, Mike Thomas, David Price, Graham Devereux, Bernard Higgins, Tim Harrison, Rebecca Haydock

Abstract

Asthma is one of the commonest chronic diseases in the UK. Acute exacerbations of asthma are unpredictable, disruptive and frightening. They cause considerable morbidity and account for a large component of the health service costs of asthma. The widespread use of an asthma self-management plan, designed to encourage disease monitoring and timely intervention, can reduce exacerbations and is, therefore, recommended for all patients with asthma. Unfortunately, the majority of patients are not provided with such a plan. There are a variety of reasons for this but uncertainty about what to include in the plan when asthma control is deteriorating, but before the need for orally administered corticosteroids, is a contributing factor. The aim of this trial is to determine whether an asthma self-management plan, which includes a temporary quadrupling of the dose of inhaled corticosteroid when asthma control starts to deteriorate, reduces asthma exacerbations requiring orally administered corticosteroids or unscheduled health care consultation for asthma. A multicentre, pragmatic, randomised trial in adults aged over 16 years with a clinical diagnosis of asthma, treated with a licensed dose of inhaled corticosteroid and at least one exacerbation in the previous 12 months requiring treatment with systemic corticosteroids. Participants will be randomised to either a self-management plan, which includes a temporary (maximum of 14 days) fourfold increase in inhaled corticosteroid or the same plan without an increase in inhaled corticosteroid. Participants will be followed up at 6 and 12 months and will attend the clinic for an additional visit if their asthma control deteriorates. The primary outcome is time to first asthma exacerbation, defined as the need for systemic corticosteroids and/or unscheduled health care consultation for asthma. The estimated sample size is 1800 participants. The FAST trial is an independent study that has been prioritised and commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) in the United Kingdom. It will provide high-quality evidence to inform clinical decision-making on the role of an asthma self-management plan, which includes a temporary fourfold increase of inhaled corticosteroid, when asthma control starts to deteriorate. The first participant was randomised on 17th May 2013 and recruitment will close on 31 January 2016 with the last patient last visit taking place in January 2017. ISRCTN: 15441965 , registered on 25 April 2013.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 73 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 21%
Student > Master 11 15%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Other 5 7%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 17 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 5%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 22 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 19 March 2018.
All research outputs
#3,892,470
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#45
of 45 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,739
of 327,715 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#6
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 45 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 327,715 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.