Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23093901›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2012

Beyond FEV₁ in COPD: a review of patient-reported outcomes and their measurement.

Paul Jones, Marc Miravitlles, Thys van der Molen, Karoly Kulich

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
12.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

77 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 166 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. An official American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society statement: research questions in COPD.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2015
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Comparison of laboratory- and field-based exercise tests for COPD: a systematic review.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2015
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Effect of background long-acting betaInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
    Trial
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Interpreting Evaluating Respiratory SymptomsChronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (Miami, Fla.) · 2022
    Article

17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Paul JonesDivision of Clinical Science, University of London, London, UK. pjones@sgul.ac.uk
Marc Miravitlles
Thys van der Molen
Karoly Kulich
Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Respiratorias · ESNovartis (Switzerland) · CHSt George's, University of London · GBUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) present with a variety of symptoms and pathological consequences. Although primarily viewed as a respiratory disease, COPD has both pulmonary and extrapulmonary effects, which have an impact on many aspects of physical, emotional, and mental well-being. Traditional assessment of COPD relies heavily on measuring lung function, specifically forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)). However, the evidence suggests that FEV(1) is a relatively poor correlate of symptoms such as breathlessness and the impact of COPD on daily life. Furthermore, many consequences of the disease, including anxiety and depression and the ability to perform daily activities, can only be described and reported reliably by the patient. Thus, in order to provide a comprehensive view of the effects of interventions in clinical trials, it is essential that spirometry is accompanied by assessments using patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments. We provide an overview of patient-reported outcome concepts in COPD, such as breathlessness, physical functioning, and health status, and evaluate the tools used for measuring these concepts. Particular attention is given to the newly developed instruments emerging in response to recent regulatory guidelines for the development and use of PROs in clinical trials. We conclude that although data from the development and validation of these new PRO instruments are emerging, to build the body of evidence that supports the use of a new instrument takes many years. Furthermore, new instruments do not necessarily have better discriminative or evaluative properties than older instruments. The development of new PRO tools, however, is crucial, not only to ensure that key COPD concepts are being reliably measured but also that the relevant treatment effects are being captured in clinical trials. In turn, this will help us to understand better the patient's experience of the disease.

Indexed as

Forced Expiratory VolumeHealth StatusSelf ReportSpirometryActivities of Daily LivingCost of IllnessDisease ProgressionHumansLungPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveQuality of LifeSeverity of Illness Indexchronic obstructive pulmonary diseasedyspneaexacerbationshealth-related quality of lifepatient-reported outcomesquestionnaire development

Identifiers

PMID23093901
PMCPMC3476498
OpenAlexW2147204689

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.