SynthesisBMC pulmonary medicine2026
Quality of life instruments in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a COSMIN-based systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC pulmonary medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis systematic review aims to systematically evaluate the methodological quality and measurement properties of existing quality-of-life assessment tools for patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, and to provide evidence-based recommendations for instrument selection in clinical research and practice.
methodsA comprehensive computer search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database from January 1, 2010 to December 28, 2025. Studies evaluating the measurement properties of IPF-specific quality of life tools published in Chinese or English were included. Two researchers independently screened the literature and extracted data, while four researchers assessed the methodological quality and measurement properties of the included studies according to the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines.The modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method was employed to grade the certainty of evidence, and based on this grading along with team consensus, recommendations were formulated.
resultsA preliminary search identified 1923 records (6 Chinese, 1917 English). After removing duplicates, 910 records remained; 840 were excluded by title and abstract screening, and the remaining 70 full texts were assessed. Ultimately, 11 documents were included, encompassing 9 assessment tools. The evaluation of methodological quality revealed that most tools had methodological shortcomings, particularly in content validity, cross‑cultural validity, measurement error, and criterion validity. Following the evidence grading, none of the nine tools met the standards for Category A recommendations; all were classified as Category B recommendations. Notably, the IPF-PRO scale demonstrated higher evidence quality in terms of internal consistency, structural validity, hypothesis testing, and other measurement attributes, leading to its provisional recommendation for use.
conclusionThe IPF-PRO scale demonstrates high methodological quality in its validation study for structural validity and internal consistency, with the evidence for these properties graded as "High" by the modified GRADE approach. However, its structural validity results were rated as "indeterminate" by COSMIN criteria, indicating that the statistical findings did not fully meet the criteria for "sufficient" evidence. Content validity was graded as "Moderate" and criterion validity as "Low". Therefore, while the IPF-PRO scale shows promise and is provisionally recommended for use in Chinese clinical settings with appropriate caveats, further validation is needed to confirm its structural validity and to evaluate its measurement error and responsiveness.
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.