ArticleAmerican journal of respiratory and critical care medicine2011
Comparative effectiveness research in lung diseases and sleep disorders: recommendations from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute workshop.
Article in American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03797313 (Observational Study of Expected Acute Respiratory Failure), which is not on this map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Observational Study of Expected Acute Respiratory Failure (ARF) Recovery
Who cites it
30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research.Journal of general internal medicine · 2014Pooled it
- An official American Thoracic Society research statement: comparative effectiveness research in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2013Guideline
- Peer-Driven Intervention for Care Coordination and Adherence Promotion for Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Randomized, Parallel-Group Clinical Trial.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025Trial
- Biomarkers to Predict Response to Inhaled Corticosteroids and Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonists in Adolescents and Adults with Mild Persistent Asthma.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2022Trial
- Alive and Ventilator Free: A Hierarchical, Composite Outcome for Clinical Trials in the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.Critical care medicine · 2020Trial
- Trial
- Article
- Outcome Measures to Evaluate Functional Recovery in Survivors of Respiratory Failure: A Scoping Review.CHEST critical care · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- 2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines: A Report from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2020Review
- Curb Your Enthusiasm: Definitions, Adaptation, and Expectations for Quality of Life in ICU Survivorship.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2020Article
- Article
- Comparative effectiveness trials in asthma - how will I recognize one?Current opinion in pulmonary medicine · 2018Review
- Core Outcome Measures for Clinical Research in Acute Respiratory Failure Survivors. An International Modified Delphi Consensus Study.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2017Article
- Patients' Outcomes After Acute Respiratory Failure: A Qualitative Study With the PROMIS Framework.American journal of critical care : an official publication, American Association of Critical-Care Nurses · 2017Article
- Trends in 30-day readmission rates after COPD hospitalization, 2006-2012.Respiratory medicine · 2017Article
- Core Domains for Clinical Research in Acute Respiratory Failure Survivors: An International Modified Delphi Consensus Study.Critical care medicine · 2017Article
- Outcome Measurement in ICU Survivorship Research From 1970 to 2013: A Scoping Review of 425 Publications.Critical care medicine · 2016Article
- American Thoracic Society and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Implementation Research Workshop Report.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Division of Lung Diseases of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) held a workshop to develop recommendations on topics, methodologies, and resources for comparative effectiveness research (CER) that will guide clinical decision making about available treatment options for lung diseases and sleep disorders. A multidisciplinary group of experts with experience in efficacy, effectiveness, implementation, and economic research identified (a) what types of studies the domain of CER in lung diseases and sleep disorders should include, (b) the criteria and process for setting priorities, and (c) current resources for and barriers to CER in lung diseases. Key recommendations were to (1) increase efforts to engage stakeholders in developing CER questions and study designs; (2) invest in further development of databases and other infrastructure, including efficient methods for data sharing; (3) make full use of a broad range of study designs; (4) increase the appropriate use of observational designs and the support of methodologic research; (5) ensure that committees that review CER grant applications include persons with appropriate perspective and expertise; and (6) further develop the workforce for CER by supporting training opportunities that focus on the methodologic and practical skills needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.