ArticleClinical epidemiology2011
Characteristics of Dutch and Swiss primary care COPD patients - baseline data of the ICE COLD ERIC study.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Simple functional performance tests and mortality in COPD.The European respiratory journal · 2013Trial
- Prediction of long-term clinical outcomes using simple functional exercise performance tests in patients with COPD: a 5-year prospective cohort study.Respiratory research · 2017Article
- Physical activity and risk of comorbidities in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a cohort study.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2017Article
- Validation of prediction models based on lasso regression with multiply imputed data.BMC medical research methodology · 2014Article
- Prediction of COPD-specific health-related quality of life in primary care COPD patients: a prospective cohort study.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2014Article
- Musculoskeletal disorders in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.BioMed research international · 2014Review
- Multimorbidity at sea level and high-altitude urban and rural settings: The CRONICAS Cohort Study.Journal of comorbidityArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionINTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIVE EFFORT ON CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE LUNG DISEASE: Exacerbation Risk Index Cohorts (ICE COLD ERIC) is a prospective cohort study with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients from Switzerland and The Netherlands designed to develop and validate practical COPD risk indices that predict the clinical course of COPD patients in primary care. This paper describes the characteristics of the cohorts at baseline. MATERIAL AND
methodsStandardized assessments included lung function, patient history, self-administered questionnaires, exercise capacity, and a venous blood sample for analysis of biomarkers and genetics.
resultsA total of 260 Dutch and 151 Swiss patients were included. Median age was 66 years, 57% were male, 38% were current smokers, 55% were former smokers, and 76% had at least one and 40% had two or more comorbidities with cardiovascular disease being the most prevalent one. The use of any pulmonary and cardiovascular drugs was 84% and 66%, respectively. Although lung function results (median forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV(1)] was 59% of predicted) were similar across the two cohorts, Swiss patients reported better COPD-specific health-related quality of life (Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire) and had higher exercise capacity. DISCUSSION: COPD patients in the ICE COLD ERIC study represent a wide range of disease severities and the prevalence of multimorbidity is high. The rich variation in these primary care cohorts offers good opportunities to learn more about the clinical course of COPD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.