TY - JOUR
T1 - A systematic review of how patients value COPD outcomes
AU - Zhang, Yuan
AU - Morgan, Rebecca L.
AU - Alonso-Coello, Pablo
AU - Wiercioch, Wojtek
AU - Bała, Małgorzata M.
AU - Jaeschke, Rafał R.
AU - Styczeń, Krzysztof
AU - Pardo-Hernandez, Hector
AU - Selva, Anna
AU - Begum, Housne Ara
AU - Morgano, Gian Paolo
AU - Waligóra, Marcin
AU - Agarwal, Arnav
AU - Ventresca, Matthew
AU - Strzebońska, Karolina
AU - Wasylewski, Mateusz T.
AU - Blanco-Silvente, Lídia
AU - Kerth, Janna Lina
AU - Wang, Mengxiao
AU - Zhang, Yuqing
AU - Narsingam, Saiprasad
AU - Fei, Yutong
AU - Guyatt, Gordon
AU - Schünemann, Holger J.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
©ERS 2018.
PY - 2018
Y1 - 2018
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85061997062
U2 - 10.1183/13993003.00222-2018
DO - 10.1183/13993003.00222-2018
M3 - Article
C2 - 30002103
AN - SCOPUS:85061997062
SN - 0903-1936
VL - 52
JO - European Respiratory Journal
JF - European Respiratory Journal
IS - 1
M1 - 1800222
ER -