ArticlePediatric cardiology2020
Which Functional Classification Scale is Optimal for Children with Pulmonary Hypertension (PAH)?
Article in Pediatric cardiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhancing Drug Development for Paediatric Pulmonary Hypertension-An Integrative Perspective.Pulmonary circulation · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Functional status assessed by the WHO-FC scale derived from adults is a known prognostic factor for pulmonary hypertension. Data on the usefulness of the Panama-FC scale in assessing children with pulmonary hypertension are limited. The study was performed to compare functional status results (WHO-FC and Panama-FC) and to assess the usefulness of these scales in various clinical situations. The reliability of the Panama-FC questionnaire method for facilitating patient evaluation was also examined. 26 functional status assessments (7 in disease progression/after treatment intensification) in both scales were analyzed in 19 patients with PAH confirmed in RHC. WHO-FC, Panama-FC scales, and questionnaire-based on Panama-FC were conducted independently by three different physicians. Results of assessments were compared with each other and with 6MWD, NTproBNP level, and echo parameters (TAPSE, RV/LV ratio). The Panama-FC scale results obtained using the medical interview method and questionnaire did not differ. Both WHO-FC and Panama-FC classes well-reflected disease advancement confirmed by non-invasive parameters (NTproBNP, 6MWD, TAPSE, RV/LV ratio). Differences between grading the class in both scales were observed: 5pts were classified to II (Panama-FC) vs I (WHO-FC), 2pts were in lower risk group in WHO-FC (II) vs Panama (IIIa). Worsening or improvement after treatment intensification in functional status in both scales was connected with the significant change of NTproBNP level. The 6-min walking distance did not change. TAPSE, RV/LV ratio changed significantly in 3pts with IPAH, accordingly to change in WHO-FC and Panama-FC. WHO-FC and Panama-FC well reflect the disease advancement. The questionnaire method simplified the use of the Panama-FC scale. The Panama-FC scale appears to be better for assessing functional status during long-term follow-up, while the WHO-FC scale was more useful in short-term treatment monitoring.
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.