Abstract
Our objective was to summarise systematically all research evidence related to how patients value outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
We conducted a systematic review (systematic review registration number CRD42015015206) by searching PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL, and included reports that assessed the relative importance of outcomes from COPD patients' perspective. Two authors independently determined the eligibility of studies, abstracted the eligible studies and assessed risk of bias. We narratively summarised eligible studies, meta-analysed utilities for individual outcomes and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach.
We included 217 quantitative studies. Investigators most commonly used utility measurements of outcomes (n=136), discrete choice exercises (n=13), probability trade-off (n=4) and forced choice techniques (n=46). Patients rated adverse events as important but on average, less so than symptom relief. Exacerbation and hospitalisation due to exacerbation are the outcomes that COPD patients rate as most important. This systematic review provides a comprehensive registry of related studies.
Abstract
Systematic review of the importance placed by patients on COPD outcomes informs the trade-off between benefits and harms http://ow.ly/l5De30kgD9g
Footnotes
This article has supplementary material available from erj.ersjournals.com
Author Contributions: Y. Zhang and H.J. Schünemann designed the study; Y. Zhang, R.L. Morgan, P. Alonso-Coello, A. Selva, H. Ara Begum, G.P. Morgano, W. Wiercioch, M. Ventresca, M.M. Bała, R.R. Jaeschke, M.T. Wasylewski, K. Styczeń, H. Pardo-Hernandez, A. Agarwal, J-L. Kerth, L. Blanco-Silvente, M. Wang, Y. Zhang, S. Narsingam and Y. Fei screened the literature and abstracted the data; Y. Zhang, R.L. Morgan, P. Alonso-Coello, G. Guyatt and H.J. Schünemann drafted the manuscript; all authors read and approved the final manuscript; and H.J. Schünemann conceived of and funded the study.
Conflict of interest: H.J. Schünemann reports that he has no financial conflict of interest. He is Co-chair of the GRADE working group.
Support statement: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors but was supported by the MacGRADE center at McMaster University. This project does not have any sponsorship from industrial or governmental sources in its design, collection of data, analysis or interpretation of data, writing of the report, or decision to submit for publication. Funding information for this article has been deposited with the Crossref Funder Registry.
- Received January 21, 2018.
- Accepted May 21, 2018.
- The content of this work is copyright of the authors or their employers. Design and branding are copyright ©ERS 2018.