ArticleERJ open research2025
Core outcome domains for
Article in ERJ open research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Methods: We invited relevant stakeholders in MAC-PD including people living with MAC-PD, their family members and friends, clinicians, researchers and research funding organisations to participate in an electronically administered Delphi consensus process. Participants rated preliminary domain importance, without regard to availability, feasibility or validity of potential measurement instruments. We used descriptive analyses to evaluate participant demographics and domain ratings, with predetermined criteria for COD inclusion. Results: A total of 306 participants representing 17 countries participated in round 1, 197 (64.4%) in round 2 and 173 (56.5%) in round 3. Over half of participants were people living with MAC-PD (57.2%), with 31.1% reporting their primary role as clinician, 9.2% as researcher. Symptoms, microbiology, treatment side-effects, chest imaging, physical function, treatment burden, and vitality/energy domains met criteria for COD inclusion in round 1. Disease recurrence and biomarkers met COD inclusion criteria in round 2 and round 3, respectively. Conclusion: Participants evaluated 11 outcome domains and suggested two additional domains for consideration, reaching COD consensus inclusion criteria for nine domains. Identification and dissemination of these CODs will help guide research priorities for measurement instruments and facilitate composite measure of disease activity development for MAC-PD.
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.