ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2012
Accuracy of symptoms, signs, and C-reactive protein for early chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Weighing the evidence for pharmacological treatment interventions in mild COPD; a narrative perspective.Respiratory research · 2019Review
- Drop in lung function during asthma and COPD exacerbations - can it be assessed without spirometry?International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2016Observational
- Guidelines for diagnosis and management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Joint ICS/NCCP (I) recommendations.Lung India : official organ of Indian Chest Society · 2013Article
- Should chest examination be reinstated in the early diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease?International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2013Article
- Laryngeal measurements and diagnostic tools for diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Annals of family medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGuidelines recommend detection of early chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but evidence on the diagnostic work-up for COPD only concerns advanced and established COPD.
aimTo quantify the accuracy of symptoms and signs for early COPD, and the added value of C-reactive protein (CRP), in primary care patients presenting with cough. DESIGN AND
settingCross-sectional diagnostic study of 73 primary care practices in the Netherlands.
methodFour hundred primary care patients (182 males, mean age 63 years) older than 50 years, presenting with persistent cough (>14 days) without established COPD participated, of whom 382 completed the study. They underwent a systematic diagnostic work-up of symptoms, signs, conventional laboratory CRP level, and hospital lung functions tests, including body plethysmography, and an expert panel decided whether COPD was present (reference test). The independent value of all items was estimated by multivariable logistic regression analysis.
resultsAccording to the expert panel, 118 patients had COPD (30%). Symptoms and signs with independent diagnostic value were age, sex, current smoking, smoking more than 20 pack-years, cardiovascular comorbidity, wheezing complaints, diminished breath sounds, and wheezing on auscultation. Combining these items resulted in an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC area) of 0.79 (95% confidence interval = 0.74 to 0.83) after internal validation. The proportion of subjects with elevated CRP was higher in those with early COPD, but CRP added no relevant diagnostic information above symptoms and signs.
conclusionIn subjects presenting with persistent cough, the CRP level has no added value for detection of early 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.