ArticleOrphanet journal of rare diseases2026
Austrian Pompe Outcome Consensus (APOC): a national Delphi study.
Article in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFollow-up assessments form the basis for the continuous optimization of therapy and supportive care on an individual level, for confirming treatment efficacy, and for detecting newly emerging or unexpectedly progressive symptoms early enough to permit timely therapeutic intervention. For Pompe disease, evidence based guidelines on which assessments should constitute the minimum standard and which are required in specific situations only, were missing. Therefore, we started the Austrian Pompe Outcome Consensus (APOC) Study.
methodsAPOC was a Delphi process with two classical online and a modified third round, implemented September 2023-May 2024, following the AWMF S2k guideline. A five-member interdisciplinary steering committee invited 23 clinical experts, achieving response rates of 69.6% and 100%. A questionnaire was developed via literature scoping and an expert workshop. The importance and recommended frequency of follow-up assessments were rated using AGREE II consensus thresholds, and the classification for recommendation strength of the German Association of the Scientific Medical Societies (AWMF;Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften e. V.).
results34 statements achieved consensus. Strong recommendations included the 6-minute walk test (6MWT), timed tests, Pompe PEDI and other age-appropriate functional tests in children, muscle tests, handheld dynamometry, Fatigue Severity Scale, patient-reported outcome measures (e.g. R-Pact), forced vital capacity (sitting/supine), morphologic muscle imaging studies, pain and quality of life assessment. Further recommendations included respiratory (MIP/MEP) and sleep studies (polysomnography), creatine kinase, antibody titers, swallowing studies, liver sonography, hearing tests and speech and speech/oromotor function, physical therapy and rehabilitation, bone density assessment, and caregiver psychosocial care.
conclusionsThe APOC Delphi consensus yields AGREE II-compliant, systematically weighted recommendations delineating essential and optional follow-up assessments for Pompe disease in the context of Austrian healthcare. The applied method enabled a structured and efficient consensus-building process and appears well suited for addressing comparable questions in other rare disease contexts. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.