Patient-important outcomes in lung transplantation: A systematic review
- PMID: 35526317
- DOI: 10.1016/j.resmer.2022.100896
Patient-important outcomes in lung transplantation: A systematic review
Abstract
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.
Keywords: Lung transplantation; Patient important outcomes; Systematic review.
Copyright © 2022 SPLF and Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations of interest GW received consulting fees from CSL Behring; VB received advisory board fees from Novartis and Takeda; AR received a grant support from “Fondation du Souffle”, consulting fees and honoraria from Biotest; PhM received lecture honoraria and board fees from Pfizer, MSD and Menarini; JM received congress reimbursement fees from Fisher&Paykel and CSLBehring. CG, PiM, YC, NG, HM, ATD, SG declared no competing interest.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical