ArticleERJ open research2026
The Questionnaire for O
Article in ERJ open research, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite the established use of long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) for chronic respiratory diseases, a simple tool to assess LTOT use, clinical effectiveness and side-effects is not currently available. We therefore designed and developed the Questionnaire for Oxygen Therapy Evaluation (QuOTE). Methods: Delphi methodology was used by a group of international respiratory specialists to identify the domains and questions to include in the questionnaire. The questionnaire was beta-tested by a group of patients using LTOT. Results: In the first round, 13 clinical and academic respiratory clinicians agreed the domains to be included. Questions covered physical activity, dyspnoea, sleep quality, mental clarity, LTOT side-effects, use patterns and equipment. Advantages and disadvantages of current tools, clinical assessment priorities for patients and clinicians, and the caveats and advantages around length were discussed, further supported by the results of a confirmatory systematic literature review. Three rounds of Delphi consensus method focused 18 questions to nine questions. Usability tests for all but three patients reported the questionnaire was easy to understand, only two felt it was not quick and easy to complete and only one patient needed assistance to complete the nine-question QuOTE. Conclusion: QuOTE may improve the assessment and tracking of respiratory and sleep symptoms during initiation and ongoing treatment of patients with chronic respiratory disease receiving LTOT. By providing a brief, simple and oxygen therapy-specific tool, QuOTE can facilitate investigation of the clinical impact of LTOT and support more standardised follow-up.
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.