Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40042810›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in supportive and palliative care2025

Breathlessness in the general population.

Alexander Müller, Emiel F M Wouters, Daisy J A Janssen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in supportive and palliative care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Alexander MüllerLudwig Boltzmann Institute for Lung Health, Vienna, Austria.
Emiel F M WoutersLudwig Boltzmann Institute for Lung Health, Vienna, Austria.
Daisy J A JanssenDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of the reviewBreathlessness is a prevalent symptom that significantly affects physical and mental health. While commonly associated with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, breathlessness is increasingly recognised as a concern in the general population. This review summarises recent research on the prevalence, risk factors, assessment methods, and clinical and societal impact, with a focus on findings from the past 18 months. RECENT

findingsRecent studies indicate that breathlessness affects a substantial proportion of adults worldwide, with prevalence varying across populations and regions. Identified risk factors include older age, female sex, high body mass index, smoking, and comorbidities such as respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Novel approaches in assessing breathlessness are looking beyond unidimensional scales to improve diagnostic accuracy. However, breathlessness remains underdiagnosed in clinical practice. Recent publications also show that breathlessness has a substantial impact on health outcomes of the affected person, but also imposes a burden on their informal caregivers, health care systems and the economy. SUMMARY: Despite progress in understanding chronic breathlessness, knowledge gaps persist, particularly regarding its assessment in large-population samples. Longitudinal studies are needed to understand risk factors for breathlessness and its impact on health outcomes and society.

Indexed as

DyspneaAge FactorsBody Mass IndexCardiovascular DiseasesComorbidityCost of IllnessFemaleHumansMalePrevalenceRisk FactorsSex FactorsSmokingbreathlessnessdyspnoeageneral population

Identifiers

PMID40042810
PMCPMC12084011

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.