ArticleERJ open research2024
Priorities and barriers for research related to primary ciliary dyskinesia.
Article in ERJ open research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping challenges in the delivery of care for primary ciliary dyskinesia: an international survey on barriers and priorities.ERJ open research · 2026Article
- Advances in Health-Related Quality of Life in Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia.Pediatric pulmonology · 2026Review
- Pulmonary Exacerbations and Treatment in PCD: A Narrative Review.Pediatric pulmonology · 2026Review
- Pulmonary exacerbations in patients with genetically confirmed PCD: a prospective observational multicentre study.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2026Article
- Patients' research priorities and participation in primary ciliary dyskinesia research.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Article
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: Despite advances in primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) research, many questions remain; diagnosis is complex and no disease-specific therapies exist. Using a mixed-methods approach, we aimed to identify priorities for clinical and epidemiological research and explore barriers to research. Methods: To obtain rich, relevant, diverse data, we performed in-depth semi-structured interviews with PCD specialists selected using purposive sampling. We transcribed, coded and analysed interview data using thematic analysis. Based on interview themes that we identified, we developed an anonymous survey and circulated it widely through the BEAT-PCD network. Results: We interviewed 28 participants from 15 countries across different disciplines and expertise levels. The main themes identified as priorities for PCD research were improving diagnosis; understanding prevalence and disease course; phenotypic variability; disease monitoring; treatment strategies; clinical trial end-points; and poorly researched areas. In total, 136 participants (49% paediatric pulmonologists) from 36 countries completed the survey. Most commonly reported barriers for research were low awareness about PCD and difficulties securing funding - in more than one-third of cases, participants reported undertaking predominantly unfunded research. Research questions ranked highest included priorities related to further improving diagnosis, treating PCD, managing upper and lower airway problems, and studying clinical variability and disease prognosis. Conclusion: We need to overcome barriers of limited funding and low awareness and promote collaborations between centres, disciplines, experts and patients to address identified PCD priorities effectively. Our results contribute to the ongoing efforts of guiding the use of existing limited research resources and setting up a roadmap for future research activities.
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.