Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34944653›Full record

ArticleBiomedicines2021

Assessing Treatment Success or Failure as an Outcome in Randomised Clinical Trials of COPD Exacerbations. A Meta-Epidemiological Study.

Alexander G Mathioudakis, Sachin Ananth, Thomas Bradbury, Balazs Csoma, Pradeesh Sivapalan, Elizabeth Stovold, Gustavo Fernandez-Romero, Zsofia Lazar, Gerard J Criner, Christine Jenkins and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomedicines, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. InhaledEuropean respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Mucolytics for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Alexander G MathioudakisDivision of Infection, Immunity and Respiratory Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester M23 9LT, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4675-9616
Sachin AnanthWest Hertfordshire Hospital NHS Trust, Watford WD18 0HB, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6204-993X
Thomas BradburyThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney 1466, Australia.
Balazs CsomaDepartment of Pulmonology, Faculty of Medicine, Semmelweis University, 1085 Budapest, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0002-9425-1219
Pradeesh SivapalanSection of Respiratory Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Herlev-Gentofte Hospital, 2900 Hellerup, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-8620-3655
Elizabeth StovoldCochrane Airways Group, Population Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, London SW17 0RE, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5405-7737
Gustavo Fernandez-RomeroDepartment of Thoracic Medicine and Surgery, Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19140, USA.
Zsofia LazarDepartment of Pulmonology, Faculty of Medicine, Semmelweis University, 1085 Budapest, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0003-2444-9040
Gerard J CrinerDepartment of Thoracic Medicine and Surgery, Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19140, USA.
Christine JenkinsThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney 1466, Australia.
Alberto PapiResearch Center on Asthma and COPD, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Ferrara, 44121 Ferrara, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6924-4500
Jens-Ulrik JensenSection of Respiratory Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Herlev-Gentofte Hospital, 2900 Hellerup, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-4036-0521
Jørgen VestboDivision of Infection, Immunity and Respiratory Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester M23 9LT, UK.
On Behalf Of The Decode-Net

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A recently published ERS core outcome set recommends that all trials of COPD exacerbation management should assess the treatment success (or "cure" of the exacerbation), defined as a dichotomous measure of the overall outcome of an exacerbation. This methodological systematic review describes and compares the instruments that were used to assess treatment success or failure in 54 such RCTs, published between 2006-2020. Twenty-three RCTs used composite measures consisting of several undesirable outcomes of an exacerbation, together defining an overall unfavourable outcome, to define treatment failure. Thirty-four RCTs used descriptive instruments that used qualitative or semi-quantitative descriptions to define cure, marked improvement, improvement of the exacerbation, or treatment failure. Treatment success and failure rates among patients receiving guidelines-directed treatments at different settings and timepoints are described and could be used to inform power calculations in future trials. Descriptive instruments appeared more sensitive to treatment effects compared to composite instruments. Further methodological studies are needed to optimise the evaluation of treatment success/failure. In the meantime, based on the findings of this systematic review, the ERS core outcome set recommends that cure should be defined as sufficient improvement of the signs and symptoms of the exacerbation such that no additional systemic treatments are required.

Indexed as

chronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseclinical trials methodsCOPDCOPD exacerbationscureendpointsoutcomesrandomised controlled trialssystematic reviewstreatment success

Identifiers

PMID34944653
PMCPMC8698292

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.