ArticleChronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (Miami, Fla.)2022
Interpreting Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms
Article in Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (Miami, Fla.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of ensifentrine in treatment of COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseasePooled it
- Defining score interpretation thresholds for clinical outcome assessments: a review of terminology and reporting recommendations.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Review
- Developing, Analyzing, and Interpreting Outcome Assessments to Improve Endpoints in Infectious Diseases Clinical Research.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2025Article
- The effectiveness and value of ensifentrine for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2024Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Accurately interpreting scores on patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures is essential to understanding and communicating treatment benefit. Over the years, terminology and methods for developing recommendations for PRO score interpretation in clinical trials have evolved, leading to some confusion in the field. The phrase "minimal clinically important difference (MCID)" has been simplified to "minimal important difference (MID)" and use of responder thresholds to interpret statistically significant treatment effects has increased. Anchor-based derivation methods continue to be the standard, with specific variations preferred by regulatory authorities for drug development programs. In the midst of these changes, the Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms™ in COPD (E-RS:COPD) was developed and qualified for use as an endpoint in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) drug development programs. This paper summarizes the evolution of terminology and method preferences for the development of recommendations for interpreting scores from PRO measures used in clinical trials, and how these changes are reflected in the E-RS:COPD recommendations. The intent is to add clarity to discussions around PRO endpoints and facilitate use of the E-RS:COPD as a key efficacy endpoint in clinical trials of COPD.
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.