ArticleERJ open research2022
Development and validation of an interstitial lung disease exposure questionnaire for sub-Saharan Africa.
Article 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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- An Evidence-Based Exposure Questionnaire for Interstitial Lung Disease: EXPO-ILD.CHEST pulmonary · 2026Article
- Scoping review of exposure questionnaires and surveys in interstitial lung disease.BMJ open respiratory research · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society guidelines recommend context-specific exposure assessments to diagnose interstitial lung disease (ILD). In sub-Saharan Africa, ILD diagnoses are rare, and locally validated ILD exposure questionnaires are not used. Methods: A physician-administered ILD exposure questionnaire was developed using a four-step mixed-methods modified Delphi approach. First, ILD questionnaires from high-income countries and data from Pneumotox were reviewed, compiled and face-validated. Second, a local pilot group of ILD experts ranked item relevance using a Likert scale and suggested additions. Third, the questionnaire format and pilot rankings were addressed in a focus group discussion that was analysed using grounded theory. Finally, following focus group discussion modifications, the resulting items (with three duplicate item groups for evaluation of internal consistency) were ranked for importance by members of the Pan-African Thoracic Society (PATS). Results: Face validation resulted in 82 items in four categories: "Smoking and Drugs", "Environmental Exposures", "Occupations" and "Medications". Pilot group (n=10) ranking revealed 27 outliers and 30 novel suggestions. Focus group (n=12) discussion resulted in 10 item deletions, 14 additions and 22 re-wordings; themes included desire for extensive questionnaires and stigma sensitivity. Final validation involved 58 PATS members (mean±sd age 46±10.6 years, 76% male, from 17 countries) ranking 84 items derived from previous steps and three duplicate question groups. The questionnaire was internally consistent (Cronbach's α >0.80) and ultimately included 73 items. Conclusion: This mixed-methods study included experts from 17 countries in sub-Saharan Africa and successfully developed a 73-item ILD exposure questionnaire for sub-Saharan Africa. African pulmonary experts valued region-specific additions and ranked several items from existing ILD questionnaires as unimportant.
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.