ArticleERJ open research2026
The COCOS-IPF core outcome set for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis/progressive pulmonary fibrosis care: a mixed-method multi-perspective approach.
Article in ERJ open research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Holistic Management of Pulmonary Fibrosis: A Comprehensive Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: It is unclear which outcomes are essential for the care of individuals with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis or progressive pulmonary fibrosis (IPF/PPF). We aimed to develop a core outcome set (COS) together with patients with IPF/PPF for standard care across Europe. Methods: A modified three-round Delphi study in five languages involved patients, caregivers, pulmonologists, nurses and other healthcare professionals. The initial survey consisted of 56 outcomes potentially relevant for IPF/PFF care that were identified through a scoping review, a survey with healthcare professionals and patient-led focus groups with patients and caregivers. The importance of each outcome for IPF/PPF care was scored on a 9-point Likert scale. After each round, outcomes were removed if not deemed critically important by all stakeholder groups, using predefined criteria. Afterwards, a multi-stakeholder consensus workshop was held to endorse the included outcomes and discuss and vote on those without consensus. Results: The three rounds involved 110, 78 and 66 participants from 14 European countries (one third being patients and caregivers). 14 stakeholders contributed to the consensus workshop. The final COS consists of 17 outcomes: acute exacerbation, breathlessness, complications and side-effects of the treatment, cough, exercise capacity, lung function, nutritional status, physical activity, activities of daily living, being knowledgeable about the disease, capability to do activities you enjoy, coping with the disease, feelings of anxiety, life satisfaction, loss of independence, satisfaction with care and treatment adherence. Conclusions: This COS is recommended for use in clinical IPF/PPF care, but will also guide future intervention research.
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.