ArticleThe Korean journal of internal medicine2015
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) assessment test scores corresponding to modified Medical Research Council grades among COPD patients.
Article in The Korean journal of internal medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of traditional Chinese and Western medicine combined with chronic disease management in pulmonary rehabilitation and evaluation of efficacy.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
- Variation in Assignment of the COPD Patients into a GOLD Group According to Symptoms Severity.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2020Observational
- Safety and efficacy of acupuncture for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A systematic review protocol.Medicine · 2019Article
- The cutoff point of clinical chronic obstructive pulmonary disease questionnaire for more symptomatic patients.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2018Observational
- Comparison of COPD Assessment Test and Clinical COPD Questionnaire to predict the risk of exacerbation.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2018Observational
- Positive end-expiratory pressure attenuates hemodynamic effects induced by an overload of inspiratory muscles in patients with COPD.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2017Observational
- COPD assessment test score and serum C-reactive protein levels in stable COPD patients.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2016Observational
- Explainable machine learning model for predicting acute exacerbations of COPD combining sarcopenia index and traditional risk factors: A retrospective single-center exploratory study.Chronic respiratory diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsIn assigning patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to subgroups according to the updated guidelines of the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease, discrepancies have been noted between the COPD assessment test (CAT) criteria and modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) criteria. We investigated the determinants of symptom and risk groups and sought to identify a better CAT criterion.
methodsThis retrospective study included COPD patients seen between June 20, 2012, and December 5, 2012. The CAT score that can accurately predict an mMRC grade ≥ 2 versus < 2 was evaluated by comparing the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) and by classification and regression tree (CART) analysis.
resultsAmong 428 COPD patients, the percentages of patients classified into subgroups A, B, C, and D were 24.5%, 47.2%, 4.2%, and 24.1% based on CAT criteria and 49.3%, 22.4%, 8.9%, and 19.4% based on mMRC criteria, respectively. More than 90% of the patients who met the mMRC criteria for the 'more symptoms group' also met the CAT criteria. AUROC and CART analyses suggested that a CAT score ≥ 15 predicted an mMRC grade ≥ 2 more accurately than the current CAT score criterion. During follow-up, patients with CAT scores of 10 to 14 did not have a different risk of exacerbation versus those with CAT scores < 10, but they did have a lower exacerbation risk compared to those with CAT scores of 15 to 19.
conclusionsA CAT score ≥ 15 is a better indicator for the 'more symptoms group' in the management of COPD patients.
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.