Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37404845›Full record

ArticleERJ open research2023

Patients' acceptance of outcome and experience measurements during hospitalisation for COPD exacerbations: a CICERO Clinical Research Collaboration-European Lung Foundation online patient survey.

Iwein Gyselinck, Sanjay Ramakrishnan, Kristina Vermeersch, Andreas Halner, Hendrik Pott, Fabienne Dobbels, Courtney Coleman, Philip Collis, Henrik Watz, Timm Greulich and 6 more

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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Optimizing COPD Care in Belgium: A Multidisciplinary Expert Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Risk Management.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

16 authors at 9 institutions in 6 countries.

Iwein GyselinckClinical Department of Respiratory Diseases, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4068-7228
Sanjay RamakrishnanRespiratory Medicine Unit, Nuffield Department of Medicine - Experimental Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3003-7918
Kristina VermeerschClinical Department of Respiratory Diseases, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Andreas HalnerRespiratory Medicine Unit, Nuffield Department of Medicine - Experimental Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Hendrik PottPhilipps-University Department of Medicine, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University Medical Centre Giessen and Marburg; Philipps-University, German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Marburg, Germany.
Fabienne DobbelsCenter for Nursing and Midwifery, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Courtney ColemanEuropean Lung Foundation, Sheffield, UK.
Philip CollisEuropean Lung Foundation Patient Advisory Group.
Henrik WatzPulmonary Research Institute at Lungen Clinic Grosshansdorf, Grosshansdorf, Germany.
Timm GreulichPhilipps-University Department of Medicine, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University Medical Centre Giessen and Marburg; Philipps-University, German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Marburg, Germany.
Frits M E FranssenDepartment of Research and Education, CIRO, Horn, Netherlands.
Pierre-Régis BurgelAssistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Hopital Cochin Pneumologie, Paris, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0903-9828
Mona BafadhelSchool of Immunology and Microbial Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9993-2478
Wim JanssensClinical Department of Respiratory Diseases, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1830-2982
CICERO Consortium
CICERO Clinical Research Collaboration members.Chairs:
KU Leuven · BEEdith Cowan University · AUPhilipps University of Marburg · DEGerman Center for Lung Research · DEInserm · FRKing's College London · GBLung Foundation Netherlands · NLMaastricht University Medical Centre · NLBritish Lung Foundation · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The lack of standardised outcome assessments during hospitalisation and follow-up for acute COPD exacerbations has hampered scientific progress and clinical proficiency. The objective of the present study was to evaluate patients' acceptance of selected outcome and experience measurements during hospitalisations for COPD exacerbations and follow-up. Methods: An online survey was held amongst COPD patients in France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Germany and the UK. The European Lung Foundation COPD Patient Advisory Group was involved in the conceptualisation, development and dissemination of the survey. The survey was complementary to a previously obtained expert consensus. We assessed patients' views and acceptance of selected patient-reported outcomes or experiences and corresponding measurement instruments (for dyspnoea, frequent productive cough, health status and hospitalisation experience), and of selected clinical investigations (blood draw, pulmonary function test, 6-min walk test, chest computed tomography, echocardiography). Findings: 200 patients completed the survey. All selected outcomes and experiences were deemed important, and acceptance of their methods of assessment was high. The modified Medical Research Council scale and a numerical rating scale to address dyspnoea, the COPD Assessment Test for quality of life and frequent productive cough, and the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems for hospital experiences were the instruments preferred by patients. Consensus on importance of blood draw and spirometry was higher compared with the other investigations. Interpretation: The survey results endorse the use of the selected outcome and experience measurements during hospitalisations for COPD exacerbations. They can be used to optimise standardised and patient-centred care and facilitate multicentric data collection.

Identifiers

PMID37404845
PMCPMC10316033
OpenAlexW4376134698

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.