Trial reportBMC pulmonary medicine2013
Putting health status guided COPD management to the test: protocol of the MARCH study.
Trial report in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Educational interventions for health professionals managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Self-management interventions including action plans for exacerbations versus usual care in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Effectiveness of the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (ABC) tool: study protocol of a cluster randomised trial in primary and secondary care.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2014Trial
- A wearable multi-modal acoustic system for breathing analysis.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2022Article
- Feasibility and applicability of the paper and electronic COPD assessment test (CAT) and the clinical COPD questionnaire (CCQ) in primary care: a clinimetric study.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2017Article
- Primary care COPD patients compared with large pharmaceutically-sponsored COPD studies: an UNLOCK validation study.PloS one · 2014Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a disease state characterized by airflow limitation that is not fully reversible and usually progressive. Current guidelines, among which the Dutch, have so far based their management strategy mainly on lung function impairment as measured by FEV1, while it is well known that FEV1 has a poor correlation with almost all features of COPD that matter to patients. Based on this discrepancy the GOLD 2011 update included symptoms and impact in their treatment algorithm proposal. Health status measures capture both symptoms and impact and could therefore be used as a standardized way to capture the information a doctor could otherwise only collect by careful history taking and recording. We hypothesize that a treatment algorithm that is based on a simple validated 10 item health status questionnaire, the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ), improves health status (as measured by SGRQ) and classical COPD outcomes like exacerbation frequency, patient satisfaction and health care utilization compared to usual care based on guidelines. METHODS/
designThis hypothesis will be tested in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) following 330 patients for two years. During this period general practitioners will receive treatment advices every four months that are based on the patient's health status (in half of the patients, intervention group) or on lung function (the remaining half of the patients, usual care group). DISCUSSION: During the design process, the selection of outcomes and the development of the treatment algorithm were challenging. This is discussed in detail in the manuscript to facilitate researchers in designing future studies in this changing field of implementation research.
trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register, NTR2643.
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.