Trial reportBMJ open2026
Experiences of using portable oxygen concentrators delivering oxygen or air among people with fibrotic interstitial lung disease in Australia: a qualitative study.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03737409 (PFOX), which is not on this 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.
PFOX: Pulmonary Fibrosis Ambulatory Oxygen Trial
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAmbulatory oxygen therapy (AOT), defined as the use of oxygen during activities of daily living and exercise, may be prescribed to optimise quality of life and physical activity in people with fibrotic interstitial lung disease (fILD) with exertional hypoxaemia. The aim of this study was to compare patient experiences of ambulatory therapy with oxygen or air delivered via an identical portable oxygen concentrator (POC) in order to understand perceptions of therapy in both active and sham conditions.
designA qualitative study using semistructured interviews with open-ended questions was conducted over the telephone.
settingParticipants data were used from a 6-month clinical trial of AOT (NCT03737409) in three hospitals in Australia.
participantsIncluded participants were randomised 1:1 to receive AOT using a POC (oxygen group) or sham therapy using an identical POC delivering air (air group). Participants were instructed to use the POC whenever they were physically active over 6 months. Participants were blind to group allocation. Interviews were conducted after the intervention period and were recorded and transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was used to report on experiences.
results23 participants with fILD agreed to be interviewed (12 oxygen group, 11 air group). Participants presented with moderate to severe fILD. Four major themes with subthemes were identified in both groups: benefits of POC use, negative aspects of POC use, equipment features, personal decisions about POC use. Themes and experiences did not differ between oxygen and air groups.
conclusionsPOC use provides benefits and challenges. Shared decision-making and consideration of the balance between perceived benefits and harms are required when prescribing this therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03737409.
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.