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., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: A. Spanevello reports consulting fees from GSK; payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, and GSK; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for GSK. L. Pérez de Llano reports grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Esteve, FAES Pharma, and Teva, consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GEBRO, Gilead, GSK, MSD, Novartis, and Sanofi; payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Esteve, GSK, LEO Pharma, MSD, Novartis, and Sanofi; support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, FAES Pharma, GSK, and Novartis; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca. C. Domingo Ribas has received funding for travel or speaker fees from ALK, Almirall, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Esteve, Ferrer, GSK, Menarini, Novartis, Pfizer, and Stallergenes, and declares no specific conflicts of interest to report regarding this paper. J.D. Blakey reports grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Novartis; consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, and GSK; payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, and GSK; support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and GSK; receipt of medical writing support from GSK and Teva; payment to their institution for advisory work from Asthma Australia; and unpaid advisory work from Asthma WA. H. Inoue declares research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, payment or honoraria for lectures and advisory committees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Kyorin, Novartis, and Sanofi. G.W. Canonica declares no conflict of interest for the current paper, and reports having received research grants as well as being lecturer or having received advisory board fees from A.Menarini, Allergy Therapeutics, Anallergo, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, FAES Pharma, Firma, Genentech, GSK, Guidotti-Malesci, Hal Allergy, Innovacaremd, Novartis, OmPharma, RedMaple, Sanofi-Aventis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Stallergenes-Greer, ThermoFisher, Uriach Pharma, and Valeas. D. Yang, and M. Dalcolmo declare that they have no disclosures of interest. G. Garcia declares participation in advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Novartis, and Sanofi; participation in sponsored activities for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Novartis, Sanofi, and Phoenix; principal investigator for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Covance, GSK, Iqvia, Novartis, Parexel, PPD, Sanofi, and Zambon. S. Mokashi, A. Kurne, and A. Butta were GSK employees at the time of study conduct and hold shares in GSK., (© 2023 Published by Elsevier Inc.)