Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37057089›Full record

ArticleERJ open research2023

A randomised, controlled, feasibility trial of an online, self-guided breathlessness supportive intervention (SELF-BREATHE) for individuals with chronic breathlessness due to advanced disease.

Charles C Reilly, Matthew Maddocks, Trudie Chalder, Katherine Bristowe, Irene J Higginson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ERJ open research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Multicomponent services for symptoms in serious respiratory illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Charles C ReillyDepartment of Physiotherapy, King's College Hospital, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2520-2859
Matthew MaddocksCicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, King's College London, London, UK.
Trudie ChalderKing's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Department of Psychological Medicine, London, UK.
Katherine BristoweCicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, King's College London, London, UK.
Irene J HigginsonCicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3687-1313
King's College London · GB

Funding

Marie Curie MCCC-RP-15-A18859MRF_ MRF-145-0019-DG-HIGG-C0951
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: SELF-BREATHE is a complex, transdiagnostic, supportive, digital breathlessness intervention co-developed with patients. SELF-BREATHE seeks to build capacity and resilience within health services by improving the lives of people with chronic breathlessness using nonpharmacological, self-management approaches. This study aimed to determine whether SELF-BREATHE is feasible to deliver and acceptable to patients living with chronic breathlessness. Methods: A parallel, two-arm, single-blind, single-centre, randomised controlled, mixed-methods feasibility trial with participants allocated to 1) intervention group (SELF-BREATHE) or 2) control group (usual National Health Service (NHS) care). The setting was a large multisite NHS foundation trust in south-east London, UK. The participants were patients living with chronic breathlessness due to advanced malignant or nonmalignant disease(s). Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to an online, self-guided, breathlessness supportive intervention (SELF-BREATHE) and usual care or usual care alone, over 6 weeks. The Results: Between January 2021 and January 2022, 52 (47%) out of 110 eligible patients consented and were randomised. Of those randomised to SELF-BREATHE, 19 (73%) out of 26 logged on and used SELF-BREATHE for a mean±sd (range) 9±8 (1-33) times over 6 weeks. 36 (70%) of the 52 randomised participants completed and returned the end-of-study postal questionnaires. SELF-BREATHE users reported it to be acceptable. Post-intervention qualitative interviews demonstrated that SELF-BREATHE was acceptable and valued by users, improving breathlessness during daily life and at points of breathlessness crisis. Conclusion: These data support the feasibility of moving to a fully powered, randomised controlled efficacy trial with minor modifications to minimise missing data (

Identifiers

PMID37057089
PMCPMC10086687
OpenAlexW4321618053

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.