ArticleERJ open research2019
Results of the standard set for pulmonary sarcoidosis: feasibility and multicentre outcomes.
Article in ERJ open research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- D. Geraint James Lecture: The sarcoidosis saga: what insights from the past will guide us in the future.Sarcoidosis, vasculitis, and diffuse lung diseases : official journal of WASOG · 2023Article
- Outcomes in pulmonary sarcoidosis: results of a newly implemented prednisone protocol.Sarcoidosis, vasculitis, and diffuse lung diseases : official journal of WASOG · 2023Article
- Pulmonary Sarcoidosis: Beyond Restriction and Forced Vital Capacity.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2023Article
- Characterization of the PF-ILD phenotype in patients with advanced pulmonary sarcoidosis.Respiratory research · 2022Article
- A Comprehensive Review of Sarcoidosis Diagnosis and Monitoring for the Pulmonologist.Pulmonary therapy · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 9 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our study presents findings on a previously developed standard set of clinical outcome data for pulmonary sarcoidosis patients. We aimed to assess whether changes in outcome varied between the different centres and to evaluate the feasibility of collecting the standard set retrospectively. This retrospective observational comparative benchmark study included six interstitial lung disease expert centres based in the Netherlands, Belgium, the UK and the USA. The standard set of outcome measures included 1) mortality, 2) changes in pulmonary function (forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in 1 s, diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide), 3) soluble interleukin-2 receptor (sIL-2R) change, 4) weight changes, 5) quality-of-life (QoL) measures, 6) osteoporosis and 7) clinical outcome status (COS). Data collection was considered feasible if the data were collected in ≥80% of all patients. 509 patients were included in the retrospective cohort. In total six patients died, with a mean survival of 38±23.4 months after the diagnosis. Centres varied in mean baseline FVC, ranging from 110 (95% CI 92-124)% predicted to 99 (95% CI 97-123)% pred. Mean baseline body mass index (BMI) of patients in the different centres varied between 27 (95% CI 23.6-29.4) kg·m
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.