ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2019
Healthcare Professionals' Preferred Efficacy Endpoints and Minimal Clinically Important Differences in the Assessment of New Medicines for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of ensifentrine in COPD: dose-dependent effects, safety profile, and GRADE-based certainty of evidence.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- Revefenacin Area Under the Curve Spirometry in Patients with Moderate to Very Severe COPD.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2024Trial
- Regenerative therapeutics for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Pharmacological reviews · 2026Review
- Development and validation a nomogram to predict long-term mortality risks of PRISm and mild-to-moderate COPD based on NHANES 2007-2012.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Mechanisms and Assessment of Genotoxicity of Metallic Engineered Nanomaterials in the Human Environment.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Alignment between outcomes and minimal clinically important differences in the Dutch type 2 diabetes mellitus guideline and healthcare professionals' preferences.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRegistration authorities evaluate effects of new medicines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on airway obstruction, dyspnea, health status and exacerbations. To establish clinical relevance, minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) are used. The aim of this study was to investigate which efficacy endpoints and MCIDs healthcare professionals consider clinically relevant for new COPD medicines. MATERIALS AND
methods7,731 Healthcare professionals received an electronic questionnaire. Participants were asked for: 1) preferred efficacy endpoints for new COPD medicines and 2) cut-off values defining clinical relevance for forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV
results227 Healthcare professionals responded to the questionnaire. Most preferred efficacy endpoints were exacerbations (51.0%), airway obstruction (46.9%) and health status (44.9%). Mean cut-off values for TDI and SGRQ were significantly higher than the corresponding MCIDs, mean differences 1.5 (95%CI = 1.3-1.8, p < 0.001) and 7.0 (95%CI = 5.1-8.8, p < 0.001), respectively. The mean cut-off value for FEV
conclusionsHealthcare professionals largely agree with efficacy endpoints used for the evaluation of new COPD medicines. However, they seem to prefer higher cut-off values for clinical relevance for TDI and SGRQ than the registration authorities. Effects of new medicines on TDI and SGRQ that are considered clinically relevant by registration authorities do, therefore, not necessarily reflect healthcare professionals' perspectives on clinical relevance.
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.