SynthesisBMJ open2015
Diagnostic accuracy of screening tests for COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 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
42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 78 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of portable spirometers in the diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease A meta-analysis.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Performance of alternative COPD case-finding tools: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2021Pooled it
- Trial
- Impulse oscillometry and traditional pulmonary function testing: correlation, advances and clinical implications.BMJ open respiratory research · 2026Review
- Article
- Correlation between questionnaire on air pollution-related factors and chronic respiratory diseases: a case study of Minhang District, Shanghai.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Pragmatic Evaluation of an Improvement Program for People Living With Modifiable High-Risk COPD Versus Usual Care: Protocols for the Cluster Randomized PREVAIL Trial.Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (Miami, Fla.) · 2025Article
- Impulse oscillometry-derived equation for prediction of abnormal FEVThe Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025Article
- Screening of COPD patients using the COPD diagnostic questionnaire and a portable spirometer in primary healthcare institutions: a cross-sectional, diagnostic study.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Article
- Association between weight-adjusted waist index and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.PloS one · 2025Article
- Validation of the adult asthma epidemiological score: a secondary analysis of the EPI-ASTHMA population-based study.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Predicting the Healing of Lower Extremity Fractures Using Wearable Ground Reaction Force Sensors and Machine Learning.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Development and application of a deep learning-based comprehensive early diagnostic model for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Respiratory research · 2024Article
- Implementation of a screening and management pathway for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in patients with atrial fibrillation.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023Article
- Undiagnosed chronic respiratory disorders in symptomatic patients with initially suspected and excluded coronary artery disease: insights from a prospective pilot study.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Accuracy and economic evaluation of screening tests for undiagnosed COPD among hypertensive individuals in Brazil.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2022Article
- Machine-learning algorithms for asthma, COPD, and lung cancer risk assessment using circulating microbial extracellular vesicle data and their application to assess dietary effects.Experimental & molecular medicine · 2022Article
- Accuracy of the COPD diagnostic questionnaire as a screening tool in primary care.BMC primary care · 2022Article
- Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of screening tools for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary health care: Rapid evidence synthesis.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is widely underdiagnosed. A number of studies have evaluated the accuracy of screening tests for COPD, but their findings have not been formally summarised. We therefore sought to determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of such screening tests in primary care.
methodsSystematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of screening tests for COPD confirmed by spirometry in primary care. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and other bibliographic databases from 1997 to 2013 for diagnostic accuracy studies that evaluated 1 or more index tests in primary care among individuals aged ≥35 years with no prior diagnosis of COPD. Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity was performed where appropriate. Methodological quality was assessed independently by 2 reviewers using the QUADAS-2 tool.
results10 studies were included. 8 assessed screening questionnaires (the COPD Diagnostic Questionnaire (CDQ) was the most evaluated, n=4), 4 assessed handheld flow meters (eg, COPD-6) and 1 assessed their combination. Among ever smokers, the CDQ (score threshold ≥19.5; n=4) had a pooled sensitivity of 64.5% (95% CI 59.9% to 68.8%) and specificity of 65.2% (52.9% to 75.8%), and handheld flow meters (n=3) had a sensitivity of 79.9% (95% CI 74.2% to 84.7%) and specificity of 84.4% (68.9% to 93.0%). Inadequate blinding between index tests and spirometry was the main risk of bias.
conclusionsHandheld flow meters demonstrated higher test accuracy than the CDQ for COPD screening in primary care. The choice of alternative screening tests within whole screening programmes should now be fully evaluated. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42012002074.
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.