ArticleHeart & lung : the journal of critical care
Mismatch identified in symptom burden profiles in lung transplantation.
Article in Heart & lung : the journal of critical care. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is considerable heterogeneity in symptom burden among lung transplant candidates that may not be explained by objective measures of illness severity.
objectivesThis study aimed to characterize symptom burden, identify distinct profiles based on symptom burden and illness severity, and determine whether observed profiles are defined by differences in social determinates of health (SDOH).
methodsThis was a prospective study of adult lung transplant candidates. Symptoms were assessed within 3 months of transplant with the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS). MSAS subscale (physical and psychological) scores range 0-4 (higher=more symptom burden). The lung allocation score (LAS) (range 0-100) was our proxy measure of illness severity. The MSAS subscales and LAS were used as continuous indicators in a latent profile analysis to identify distinct symptom-illness severity profiles. Comparative statistics were used to identify SDOH differences among observed profiles.
resultsAmong 93 candidates, 3 distinct symptom-illness severity profiles were identified: 71% had a mild profile in which mild symptoms (MSAS physical 0.49; MSAS psychological 0.57) paired with mild illness severity (LAS 38.59). Of the 29% mismatched participants, 9% had moderate symptoms (MSAS physical 0.88; MSAS psychological 1.47) but severe illness severity (LAS 88.02) and 20% had severe symptoms (MSAS physical 1.30; MSAS psychological 1.94) but mild illness severity (LAS 42.13). The two mismatch profiles were younger, more racially diverse, and had higher psychosocial risk scores.
conclusionSymptom burden is heterogenous, does not always reflect objective measures of illness severity, and may be linked to SDOH.
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.