ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2024
Patient perspectives on knowledge gaps in hypersensitivity pneumonitis.
Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 2024. 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.
- Pilot randomized controlled trial of a peer coach-led behavioral and educational intervention to enhance quality of life in patients living with hypersensitivity pneumonitis: Protocol for the RISE-HP study.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2026Article
- Patient education and self-management in interstitial lung disease: why and what, now how?ERJ open 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesResponding to prior research findings that lack of knowledge about their disease impacted patients' quality of life, the objective of this study was to identify and prioritise information gaps about hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP) from the perspective of patients living with the disease.
designThis study used the nominal group technique, a semiquantitative and qualitative method to identify stakeholder priorities.
settingVirtual group sessions were conducted in an academic medical centre in the USA.
participants21 patients diagnosed with HP participated in this study. Participants were eligible if they spoke English and had access to the internet and were excluded if they had cognitive impairment.
resultsThe patient statements were grouped into seven themes that were prioritised by participants in the following order: (1) natural history and prognosis; (2) current treatment options and therapeutic research; (3) epidemiology and aetiology of HP; (4) living well with HP; (5) origin and management of symptoms; (6) identifying and mitigating exposures and (7) methods of educating patients, clinicians and others about HP.
conclusionsThis study provides an understanding of patients' prioritisation of knowledge gaps in HP to inform targeted educational interventions and provide avenues for future research.
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.