Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30278785›Full record

ReviewChronic respiratory disease

Development of a core outcome set for trials investigating the long-term management of bronchiectasis.

Maureen Spargo, Cristín Ryan, Damian Downey, Carmel Hughes

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Chronic respiratory disease. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Mucoactive agents in bronchiectasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Unsupervised home spirometryEuropean respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Infection and the microbiome in bronchiectasis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2024
    Review
  10. Clinimetric Properties of Outcome Measures in Bronchiectasis.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Maureen Spargo1 School of Pharmacy, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-4656-6021
Cristín Ryan2 The School of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences, Panoz Institute, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Damian Downey3 Centre for Experimental Medicine, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland.
Carmel Hughes1 School of Pharmacy, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland.
Queen's University Belfast · GBTrinity College Dublin · IEUniversity of Ulster · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Heterogeneity in outcomes measured in trials limits accurate comparison of bronchiectasis studies. A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed, standardized set of outcomes that should be measured in trials for specific clinical areas. A COS for bronchiectasis could encourage consistency in future studies. An overview of systematic reviews and qualitative study on outcome selection in bronchiectasis informed an initial list of outcomes. A Delphi panel ( n = 86) rated the importance of each outcome from 1 to 9 in 3 sequential questionnaires, as a means to achieve consensus: 1-3 = 'of limited importance'; 4-6 = 'important, but not critical'; and 7-9 = 'critical'. Outcomes rated 'critical' by ≥70% of the panel were added to the COS. Eighty-two participants responded to the first questionnaire. Attrition between each questionnaire was 5%. After 3 rounds of questioning, 18 outcomes exceeded the threshold for consensus and were included in the COS. This study has achieved consensus on 18 outcomes that should be measured in trials of interventions for bronchiectasis. Selection of the highest ranked outcomes may represent a pragmatic means for comparison. Further research is required to condense the number of outcomes selected and to determine its relevance to interventions.

Indexed as

ConsensusDisease ManagementQualitative ResearchBronchiectasisClinical Trials as TopicHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareSurveys and QuestionnairesTime FactorsBronchiectasiscore outcome setoutcomes

Identifiers

PMID30278785
PMCPMC6301837
OpenAlexW2895676885

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.