ArticleInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2011
Adjusting for COPD severity in database research: developing and validating an algorithm.
Article in International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and Validation of a Method to Estimate COPD Severity in Multiple Datasets: A Retrospective Study.Pulmonary therapy · 2021Article
- Effect of compliance with GOLD treatment recommendations on COPD health care resource utilization, cost, and exacerbations among patients with COPD on maintenance therapy.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2021Observational
- Identifying individuals with physician-diagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary care electronic medical records: a retrospective chart abstraction study.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2017Article
- Characteristics of prevalent and new COPD cases in Greece: the GOLDEN study.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2015Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWhen comparing chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD) interventions in database research, it is important to adjust for severity. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines grade severity according to lung function. Most databases lack data on lung function. Previous database research has approximated COPD severity using demographics and healthcare utilization. This study aims to derive an algorithm for COPD severity using baseline data from a large respiratory trial (UPLIFT).
methodsPartial proportional odds logit models were developed for probabilities of being in GOLD stages II, III and IV. Concordance between predicted and observed stage was assessed using kappa-statistics. Models were estimated in a random selection of 2/3 of patients and validated in the remainder. The analysis was repeated in a subsample with a balanced distribution across severity stages. Univariate associations of COPD severity with the covariates were tested as well.
resultsMore severe COPD was associated with being male and younger, having quit smoking, lower BMI, osteoporosis, hospitalizations, using certain medications, and oxygen. After adjusting for these variables, co-morbidities, previous healthcare resource use (eg, emergency room, hospitalizations) and inhaled corticosteroids, xanthines, or mucolytics were no longer independently associated with COPD severity, although they were in univariate tests. The concordance was poor (kappa = 0.151) and only slightly better in the balanced sample (kappa = 0.215).
conclusionCOPD severity cannot be reliably predicted from demographics and healthcare use. This limitation should be considered when interpreting findings from database studies, and additional research should explore other methods to account for COPD severity.
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.