ReviewERJ open research2022
Communicating with patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: can we do it better?
Review in ERJ open research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improving communication of prognostic uncertainty in advanced illness: a realist review.BMJ open · 2026Pooled it
- Consensus palliative care referral criteria for people with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: an international Delphi study.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2026Article
- Hospitalisations in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: insights from the IPF-PRO Registry and EMPIRE Registry.ERJ open research · 2026Article
- Progressive pulmonary fibrosis: the importance of identification and intervention.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026Review
- Evaluating Deployment-related Respiratory Diseases in Military Veterans.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2025Review
- Article
- Patient-centered care in pulmonary fibrosis: access, anticipate, and act.Respiratory research · 2024Review
- Patient and healthcare professional perspectives on telehealth in the care of interstitial lung disease.Chronic respiratory diseaseArticle
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 at 7 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Communications between clinicians and patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) have the potential to be challenging. The variable course and poor prognosis of IPF complicate discussions around life expectancy but should not prevent clinicians from having meaningful conversations about patients' fears and needs, while acknowledging uncertainties. Patients want information about the course of their disease and management options, but the provision of information needs to be individualised to the needs and preferences of the patient. Communication from clinicians should be empathetic and take account of the patient's perceptions and concerns. Models, tools and protocols are available that can help clinicians to improve their interactions with patients. In this article, we consider the difficulties inherent in discussions with patients with IPF and their loved ones, and how clinicians might communicate with patients more effectively, from breaking the news about the diagnosis to providing support throughout the course of the disease.
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.