Respiratory medicine and research · 2022
Patient-important outcomes in lung transplantation: A systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Weisenburger Gaëlle, Gault Nathalie, Roux Antoine, Tran-Dinh Alexy, Bunel Vincent, Godet Cendrine, Mordant Pierre, Montravers Philippe, Castier Yves, Mal Hervé, Gaudry Stéphane, Messika Jonathan, Bichat Lung Transplant Program
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Patient-important outcomes (PIOs) have emerged in respiratory medicine, in order to place the patient at the center of research. Mortality is a debated PIO in lung transplantation (LTx). The use of PIO in this specific setting has never been studied. We aimed to systematically review the use of PIOs in LTx research.
METHODS: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and Embase databases were searched to include prospective studies published in 2019, involving adult LTx recipients. We excluded articles reporting non-prognostic studies, letters, reviews, commentaries, or case reports. PIOs considered were mortality, pain, physical function, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, neuropsychological, cardiac, sleep or sexual symptoms and quality of life. This systematic review was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO register (CRD42020163425).
RESULTS: Among 1048 references retrieved, 51 were finally included in the analysis. In total, 26 (51%) studies investigated at least one PIO, as a primary outcome in 12 (23.5%) and secondary outcome in 21 (41.2%). In 15 (29.4%) studies, mortality was the most frequently reported PIO; 11 (21.5%) studies evaluated at least one PIO other than mortality, quality of life being this PIO in 6.
CONCLUSIONS: PIOs were described in half of prospective articles dealing with adult LTx recipients published in 2019. Outcomes other than mortality were insufficiently considered. A core outcome set of PIOs in LTx should be developed with patient input to guide future research in LTx.
METHODS: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and Embase databases were searched to include prospective studies published in 2019, involving adult LTx recipients. We excluded articles reporting non-prognostic studies, letters, reviews, commentaries, or case reports. PIOs considered were mortality, pain, physical function, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, neuropsychological, cardiac, sleep or sexual symptoms and quality of life. This systematic review was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO register (CRD42020163425).
RESULTS: Among 1048 references retrieved, 51 were finally included in the analysis. In total, 26 (51%) studies investigated at least one PIO, as a primary outcome in 12 (23.5%) and secondary outcome in 21 (41.2%). In 15 (29.4%) studies, mortality was the most frequently reported PIO; 11 (21.5%) studies evaluated at least one PIO other than mortality, quality of life being this PIO in 6.
CONCLUSIONS: PIOs were described in half of prospective articles dealing with adult LTx recipients published in 2019. Outcomes other than mortality were insufficiently considered. A core outcome set of PIOs in LTx should be developed with patient input to guide future research in LTx.