Evidence Hub

COPD maintenance trials use heterogeneous outcomes and measurement instruments: a systematic literature review

Truong V, Bin Safar S, Ananth S, Fally M, Beech A, Souto-Miranda S, Diar Bakerly N, Gorst SL et al.

European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society, 2026

Abstract

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of COPD management assess heterogeneous outcomes with diverse instruments and often omit those important to patients and healthcare professionals, limiting interpretability and comparability. This review aimed to identify the outcomes and instruments used in phase III/IV COPD maintenance management RCTs and assess their consistency.

Methods: We systematically reviewed all phase III/IV RCTs registered on ClinicalTrials.gov between 2010 and 2025 evaluating COPD maintenance management. Outcomes and measurement instruments were extracted from registry entries and categorised using the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) taxonomy. Registered outcomes from a random 10% sample were compared with the corresponding publications to assess concordance. Outcome frequencies were summarised across intervention types and sponsor categories.

Results: 43 unique outcomes were identified across 240 eligible RCTs. Physiological (89.5%), clinical (85.0%) and life impact outcomes (63.8%) were most frequently assessed, whereas resource use (39.6%), safety (36.7%) and mortality (16.7%) outcomes were less commonly reported. Only lung function (76.3%) and health-related quality of life (57.5%) appeared in over half of the trials. Exacerbations were reported in 40.4% of studies, while several patient-prioritised outcomes, particularly activities of daily living (5.4%) and exercise tolerance (18.3%), were infrequently assessed.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free