Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27401361›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2016

Effectiveness of the Assessment of Burden of COPD (ABC) tool on health-related quality of life in patients with COPD: a cluster randomised controlled trial in primary and hospital care.

Annerika H M Slok, Daniel Kotz, Gerard van Breukelen, Niels H Chavannes, Maureen P M H Rutten-van Mölken, Huib A M Kerstjens, Thys van der Molen, Guus M Asijee, P N Richard Dekhuijzen, Sebastiaan Holverda and 5 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Huisarts en wetenschap · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The Fold-in, Fold-out Design for DCE Choice Tasks: Application to Burden of Disease.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2019
    Article
  19. eHealth for people with COPD in the Netherlands: a scoping review.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2019
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Annerika H M SlokDepartment of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Daniel KotzDepartment of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands Institute of General Practice, Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Gerard van BreukelenDepartment of Methodology & Statistics, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Niels H ChavannesDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Maureen P M H Rutten-van MölkenInstitute for Health Policy and Management/Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Huib A M KerstjensDepartment of Pulmonary Diseases, Groningen Research Institute for Asthma and COPD (GRIAC), University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Thys van der MolenDepartment of General Practice, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Guus M AsijeeDepartment of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands Foundation PICASSO for COPD, Alkmaar, The Netherlands.
P N Richard DekhuijzenDepartment of Pulmonary Diseases, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Sebastiaan HolverdaLung Foundation Netherlands, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
Philippe L SaloméHuisartsencoöperatie PreventZorg, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Lucas M A GoossensInstitute for Health Policy and Management/Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Mascha TwellaarDepartment of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Johannes C C M In 't VeenDepartment of Pulmonology and SZT Centre of Excellence for Asthma & COPD, Sint Franciscus Vlietland Gasthuis, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Onno C P van SchayckDepartment of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

NTR3788 NTR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAssessing the effectiveness of the Assessment of Burden of COPD (ABC) tool on disease-specific quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) measured with the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), compared with usual care.

methodsA pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial, in 39 Dutch primary care practices and 17 hospitals, with 357 patients with COPD (postbronchodilator FEV1/FVC ratio <0.7) aged ≥40 years, who could understand and read the Dutch language. Healthcare providers were randomly assigned to the intervention or control group. The intervention group applied the ABC tool, which consists of a short validated questionnaire assessing the experienced burden of COPD, objective COPD parameter (eg, lung function) and a treatment algorithm including a visual display and treatment advice. The control group provided usual care. Researchers were blinded to group allocation during analyses. Primary outcome was the number of patients with a clinically relevant improvement in SGRQ score between baseline and 18-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC; a measurement of perceived quality of care).

resultsAt 18-month follow-up, 34% of the 146 patients from 27 healthcare providers in the intervention group showed a clinically relevant improvement in the SGRQ, compared with 22% of the 148 patients from 29 healthcare providers in the control group (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.16). No difference was found on the CAT (-0.26 points (scores ranging from 0 to 40); 95% CI -1.52 to 0.99). The PACIC showed a higher improvement in the intervention group (0.32 points (scores ranging from 1 to 5); 95% CI 0.14 to 0.50).

conclusionsThis study showed that use of the ABC tool may increase quality of life and perceived quality of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR3788; Results.

Indexed as

Cost of IllnessHealth StatusPatient SatisfactionPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveQuality of LifeSeverity of Illness IndexAgedFemaleHospitalizationHospitalsHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPrimary Health CareQuality of Health CareChronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseCommunication toolDisease ManagementPatient-centred careQuality of LifeShared Decision Making

Identifiers

PMID27401361
PMCPMC4947734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.