Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20717915›Full record

ArticlePediatric pulmonology2010

Pulmonary outcome prediction (POP) tools for cystic fibrosis patients.

Donald R VanDevanter, Jeffrey S Wagener, David J Pasta, Eric Elkin, Joan R Jacobs, Wayne J Morgan, Michael W Konstan

Abstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Pediatric pulmonology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Metabotypes ofMetabolites · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Treatment and demographic factors affecting time to next pulmonary exacerbation in cystic fibrosis.Journal of cystic fibrosis : official journal of the European Cystic Fibrosis Society · 2015
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Donald R VanDevanterCase Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. enigmaster@comcast.net
Jeffrey S Wagener
David J Pasta
Eric Elkin
Joan R Jacobs
Wayne J Morgan
Michael W Konstan
Case Western Reserve University · USPinnacle Clinical Research · USUniversity of Arizona · US

Funding

Translational Research in Cystic FibrosisP30DK027651 · NIDDK · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI DRUMM, MITCHELL L · 1986 to 2014
$15.6M
NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK027651
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleLoss of lung function in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) is associated with increased mortality and varies between individuals and over time. Predicting this decline could improve patient management.

objectivesTo develop simple pulmonary outcome prediction (POP) tools to estimate lung function at age 6 in patients aged 2-5 years (POP(2-5)) and lung function change over a 4-year period in patients aged 6-17 years (POP(6-17)).

methodsAnalyses were conducted using patients from the Epidemiologic Study of CF (ESCF). To be included in any analysis, patients had to have 1 year of clinical history recorded in ESCF prior to a clinically stable routine Index Clinic Visit (ICV). In addition to this criterion, for the POP(2-5) tool patients had to be between 2 and 5 years old at ICV and have a second clinically stable visit with spirometric measures at age 6. For the POP(6-17) tool, patients had to be between the ages of 6 and 17 years old at an ICV that included spirometric measures and had to have a second clinically stable visit with spirometric measures from 3 to 5 years after ICV. All patients enrolled in ESCF who met these inclusion criteria were studied. POP(2-5) and POP(6-17) populations were further divided into development groups (with ICV before January 1, 1998) and validation groups (with ICV after that date). Development groups were used to model forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV(1)) percent predicted at age 6 years (for POP(2-5)) and annualized FEV(1) % predicted change from ICV to the second visit (for POP(6-17)) by multivariable linear regression using age, sex, weight-for-age percentile, cough, sputum production, clubbing, crackles, wheeze, sinusitis, number of exacerbations requiring intravenous antibiotics in the past year, elevated liver enzymes, pancreatic enzyme use, and respiratory tract culture status, plus height-for-age percentile (POP(2-5)) and index FEV(1) (POP(6-17)). Integer-based POP(2-5) and POP(6-17) tools created from selected variables were evaluated by Pearson correlation and then prospectively validated with separate data collected later from ESCF patients with ICV after January 1, 1998. MAIN

resultsPOP(2-5) and POP(6-17) development groups included 2,709 and 6,113 patients and validation groups included 3,458 and 7,086 patients, respectively. Variables retained were weight-for-age percentile, clubbing, crackles, wheeze, number of exacerbations, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa culture status (both tools), daily cough (POP(2-5)), and age, sex, and index FEV(1) % predicted (POP(6-17)). Correlation coefficients for POP(2-5) and POP(6-17) tools prospectively applied to validation groups were +0.32 and +0.37, respectively.

conclusionsThese simple integer-based POP algorithms employ variables available at clinic visits and can be used to predict the probability of different future pulmonary outcomes for individual patients and patient populations.

Indexed as

Severity of Illness IndexAdolescentAge FactorsAlgorithmsBody WeightChildChild, PreschoolCoughCystic FibrosisFemaleForced Expiratory VolumeHumansLinear ModelsLongitudinal StudiesMaleProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID20717915
PMCPMC4112577
OpenAlexW2123569442

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.