ArticleBMC proceedings2018
Proceedings of the 3rd BEAT-PCD Conference and 4th PCD Training School.
Article in BMC proceedings, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Natural variability of lung function in primary ciliary dyskinesia: longitudinal analysis from the PROVALF-PCD cohort.ERJ open research · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Role of Immunofluorescence Analysis in Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia-Suspected Individuals.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Associations between respiratory pathogens and lung function in primary ciliary dyskinesia: cross-sectional analysis from the PROVALF-PCD cohort.ERJ open research · 2024Article
- Lower airway clinical outcome measures for use in primary ciliary dyskinesia research: a scoping review.ERJ open research · 2021Article
- Registries and collaborative studies for primary ciliary dyskinesia in Europe.ERJ open research · 2020Review
- Standardised clinical data from patients with primary ciliary dyskinesia: FOLLOW-PCD.ERJ open research · 2020Article
- Proceedings of the 4BMC proceedings · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 15 institutions in 8 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) is a chronic suppurative airways disease that is usually recessively inherited and has marked clinical phenotypic heterogeneity. Classic symptoms include neonatal respiratory distress, chronic rhinitis since early childhood, chronic otitis media, recurrent airway infections leading to bronchiectasis, chronic sinusitis, laterality defects with and without congenital heart disease including abnormal situs in approximately 50% of the cases, and male infertility. Lung function deteriorates progressively from childhood throughout life. 'Better Experimental Approaches to Treat Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia' (BEAT-PCD) is a network of scientists and clinicians coordinating research from basic science through to clinical care with the intention of developing treatments and diagnostics that lead to improved long-term outcomes for patients. BEAT-PCD activities are supported by EU funded COST Action (BM1407). The third BEAT-PCD conference and fourth PCD training school were held jointly in February 2018 in Lisbon, Portugal. Presentations and workshops focussed on advancing the knowledge and skills relating to PCD in: basic science, epidemiology, diagnostic testing, clinical management and clinical trials. The multidisciplinary conference provided an interactive platform for exchanging ideas through a program of lectures, poster presentations, breakout sessions and workshops. Three working groups met to plan consensus statements. Progress with BEAT-PCD projects was shared and new collaborations were fostered. In this report, we summarize the meeting, highlighting developments made during the meeting.
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.