ReviewEuropean respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society2026
Outcomes and outcome measures in studies of pulmonary alveolar proteinosis: a scoping review.
Review in European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPulmonary alveolar proteinosis (PAP) is a rare lung disease characterised by progressive accumulation of surfactant-derived lipoproteinaceous material within alveoli, impairing gas exchange and causing respiratory insufficiency. Despite therapeutic advances such as whole lung lavage, substantial heterogeneity persists in outcome selection and reporting across studies, limiting comparability and evidence synthesis.
objectiveTo systematically map and categorise outcomes and outcome measures reported in studies of PAP treatments and establish a foundation for developing a standardised core outcome set (COS).
methodsA scoping review was conducted across four databases and two clinical trial registries (May 2024, updated May 2025). Eligible studies included those reporting treatment outcomes in patients of any age with PAP. Outcomes and measures were extracted and categorised using the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials taxonomy.
resultsFrom 8475 screened records, 62 studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 31 distinct outcomes and 92 corresponding outcome measures. Physiological parameters dominated reporting, including arterial oxygenation (n=55, 89%; such as arterial oxygen tension and alveolar-arterial oxygen gradient) and lung function indices (n=53, 85%; such as diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide and forced vital capacity) were most frequently assessed. In contrast, patient-centred outcomes such as quality of life were reported in only 10 (16%) studies, while adverse events were relatively well-reported (n=41, 66%).
conclusionsThe reporting of outcomes and outcome measures in PAP studies is highly variable. There is an urgent need for a COS tailored to PAP that focuses on physiological outcomes, adverse events and patient-reported outcomes.
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.