Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22235752›Full record

ReviewRespiratory research2012

The pathogenesis of COPD and IPF: distinct horns of the same devil?

Marco Chilosi, Venerino Poletti, Andrea Rossi

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Respiratory research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 81 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
81citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
12.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

81 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 177 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. COPD - do the right thing.BMC family practice · 2021
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

21 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marco ChilosiDepartment of Pathology, University of Verona, Italy. marco.chilosi@univr.it
Venerino Poletti
Andrea Rossi
University of Verona · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

New paradigms have been recently proposed in the pathogenesis of both chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), evidencing surprising similarities between these deadly diseases, despite their obvious clinical, radiological and pathologic differences. There is growing evidence supporting a "double hit" pathogenic model where in both COPD and IPF the cumulative action of an accelerated senescence of pulmonary parenchyma (determined by either telomere dysfunction and/or a variety of genetic predisposing factors), and the noxious activity of cigarette smoke-induced oxidative damage are able to severely compromise the regenerative potential of two pulmonary precursor cell compartments (alveolar epithelial precursors in IPF, mesenchymal precursor cells in COPD/emphysema). The consequent divergent derangement of signalling pathways involved in lung tissue renewal (mainly Wnt and Notch), can eventually lead to the distinct abnormal tissue remodelling and functional impairment that characterise the alveolar parenchyma in these diseases (irreversible fibrosis and bronchiolar honeycombing in IPF, emphysema and airway chronic inflammation in COPD).

Indexed as

AnimalsCellular SenescenceFemaleHumansIdiopathic Pulmonary FibrosisInflammationLungMaleMesenchymal Stem CellsMicePulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveReceptors, NotchSmokingWnt Signaling PathwayReceptors, Notch

Identifiers

PMID22235752
PMCPMC3282644
OpenAlexW2117918359

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.