Observational studyBMC pulmonary medicine2021
Clinical evaluation of pulmonary hypertension using patient-reported outcomes: a cross-sectional study.
Observational study in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2021. 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.
- Understanding the burden of pulmonary arterial hypertension among patients and caregivers through narrative medicine: data from Italian multicentre observational INSPECTIO study.BMJ open respiratory research · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with pulmonary hypertension (PH) have progressive and disabling symptoms, as well as a burden of treatments and a difficult clinical evaluation that make health-related quality of life a particularly relevant endpoint in this disease. The objective of the study was to evaluate patient-reported outcomes of patients receiving specific treatment for PH in a tertiary hospital using a specific questionnaire (Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review-CAMPHOR) in the pharmacy consultation.
methodsA cross-sectional, observational, descriptive study was conducted. It included all patients receiving specific treatment for PH in a tertiary hospital in Madrid, Spain. The inclusion period comprised between August to December 2019. CAMPHOR questionnaires containing three domains: symptoms, activities and quality of life were completed by the patients at the pharmacy consultation. Demographic and clinical variables, including WHO Functional Class (WHO FC), PH-specific tests and hemodynamic parameters, were recorded. Non-parametric analyses to assess relations between variables and CAMPHOR domains were performed.
resultsThirty-six patients consented to participate in the study and completed the questionnaire. Median scores for symptoms, activities, and quality of life domains were 5.5 (2.5-10), 8.0 (4.5-10.5) and 3.5 (1-7.5), respectively. Statistically significant differences were found in the three domains when comparing by WHO FC, in the activities domain for 6-m walking test and in the quality of life domain for patients who had emergency visits or hospitalizations in the last year.
conclusionsThe CAMPHOR questionnaire could be useful as a complementary test to achieve an integrated evaluation of PH patients, who could complete it easily during their routine pharmacy visits.
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.