Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18046870›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2006

Strategies for improving outcomes of COPD exacerbations.

Tom Wilkinson, J A Wedzicha

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. A novel study design for antibiotic trials in acute exacerbations of COPD: MAESTRAL methodology.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2011
    Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. The Role of Non-TypeableFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Global use, utility, and methods of tele-health in COPD: a health care provider survey.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2019
    Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Early COPD: current evidence for diagnosis and management.Therapeutic advances in respiratory disease
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Tom WilkinsonAcademic Unit of Respiratory Medicine, University College London, Royal Free and University College Medical School, London UK. tomw1970@hotmail.com
J A Wedzicha

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

COPD is uniquely situated as a chronic disease at the beginning of the 21st century; it is not only an established major cause of mortality and morbidity but is increasing in prevalence despite current medical interventions. In addition COPD is not a stable disease but its natural history is punctuated by periods of acute deterioration or exacerbations. Exacerbations generate considerable additional morbidity and mortality, and directly affect patients' quality of life. However, despite significant advances in understanding and treating this disease, exacerbations continue to be the major cause of COPD-associated hospitalization, and provision for their management incurs considerable health care costs. This review will consider the current management of COPD exacerbations and how new clinical strategies may improve outcome of these important clinical events.

Indexed as

Acute DiseaseDelivery of Health CareHome Care ServicesHumansPatient AdmissionPrimary PreventionPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveTreatment OutcomeUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID18046870
PMCPMC2707157

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.