Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40368429›Full record

SynthesisEuropean respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society2025

Selection of patient-reported outcome measures in pulmonary arterial hypertension clinical trials: a systematic review, meta-analysis and health-related quality of life framework.

Frances Varian, Rebecca Burney, Charlotte Pearson, Ze Ming Goh, Joseph Newman, Gregg Rawlings, Hamza Zafar, David G Kiely, A A Roger Thompson, Robin Condliffe and 6 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Frances VarianDivision of Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine and Population Health (formerly Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4644-8391
Rebecca BurneyDivision of Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine and Population Health (formerly Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-4984-6029
Charlotte PearsonDivision of Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine and Population Health (formerly Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-8120-9678
Ze Ming GohDivision of Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine and Population Health (formerly Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8912-8470
Joseph NewmanRoyal Papworth Hospital, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5514-0754
Gregg RawlingsClinical and Applied Psychology Unit, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Hamza ZafarDivision of Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine and Population Health (formerly Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
David G KielySheffield Pulmonary Vascular Disease Unit, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0184-6502
A A Roger ThompsonDivision of Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine and Population Health (formerly Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0717-4551
Robin CondliffeSheffield Pulmonary Vascular Disease Unit, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3492-4143
Mark ToshnerRoyal Papworth Hospital, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3969-6143
Ciara McCormackDepartment of Sport Science and Nutrition, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4508-5522
Iain ArmstrongSheffield Pulmonary Vascular Disease Unit, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.
Tessa PeasgoodSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (ScHARR), School of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8024-7801
Jill CarltonSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (ScHARR), School of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9373-7663
Alexander M K RothmanDivision of Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine and Population Health (formerly Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK a.rothman@sheffield.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7847-4500

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHealth-related quality of life (HRQoL) in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is valued as an outcome measure by patients, clinicians and regulators. The selection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for measurement of HRQoL in PAH clinical trials lacks systematic evaluation of their suitability, accuracy and reliability.

methodsWe report a systematic review (PROSPERO ID: CRD42024484021) following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines of PROMs selected in PAH clinical trials. PROM measurement properties were then evaluated according to the 10-step COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist and graded by recommendation for use. Finally, HRQoL was modelled into a conceptual framework using patient interviews and surveys.

resultsScreening of 896 records identified 90 randomised controlled trials. 43 trials selected PROMs, of which 20 were sufficiently validated to detect meaningful change. Of these, eight trials were adequately powered, using either EuroQol-five dimensions-five levels (EQ-5D-5L), Short-Form-36 (SF-36) or the Living with Pulmonary Hypertension Questionnaire (LPHQ). The COSMIN evaluation recommended EmPHasis-10 and the LPHQ for use (grade A); whereas, SF-36 and EQ-5D-5L require further study (grade B). A conceptual framework of HRQoL was developed from literature comprising 8045 patients. This framework can be used to visualise the different HRQoL concepts measured by different PROMs.

conclusionTo improve patient-centred research, greater consistency in PROM selection is required. Three of 90 randomised controlled trials have selected COSMIN-recommended PROMs. Whilst the PROMs evaluated require development across the 10 areas of psychometric property measurement, EmPHasis-10 and the LPHQ can be recommended for use. The ratified conceptual framework can further support PROM selection by identifying the HRQoL concepts they are likely to capture.

Indexed as

Arterial PressureHypertension, PulmonaryPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPulmonary Arterial HypertensionQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicHealth StatusHumansPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of ResultsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID40368429
PMCPMC12076161

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.