Predicting Improvements in COPD with Clinically Important Improvements in Patient-Reported Outcomes: A Post Hoc Analysis of the EMAX Trial
Abstract
1Department of Medicine, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University Medical Center Giessen and Marburg, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Germany, Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Marburg, Germany; 2Clinical Research Institute of Southern Oregon, Medford, OR, USA; 3GSK, Brentford, Middlesex, UK (at the time of the study), RAMAX Ltd, Bramhall, Cheshire, UK; 4Precise Approach Ltd, contingent worker on assignment at GSK, Stockley Park West, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UK; 5Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; 6Centre de Pneumologie, Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada; 7GSK, Brentford, Middlesex, UK; 8Respiratory Clinical Sciences, GSK, Collegeville, PA, USA and Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Characterization and Analysis of Porosity and Pore Structures
- Practical considerations for conducting ecotoxicity test methods with manufactured nanomaterials: what have we learnt so far?
- Dental Optical Coherence Tomography
- Radiation-shielding concrete: A review of materials, performance, and the impact of radiation on concrete properties
- Testing entanglement of annihilation photons
- Calanus finmarchicus seasonal cycle and diapause in relation to gene expression, physiology, and endogenous clocks
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.