Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27990628›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2016

Action plans with brief patient education for exacerbations in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Maxwell Howcroft, E Haydn Walters, Richard Wood-Baker, Julia Ae Walters

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
14.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 134 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Effect of informationZhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2022
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. COPD Action Plans: Gaps in Development Methods, Content, and Format.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2026
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Maxwell HowcroftSchool of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.
E Haydn WaltersNHMRC Centre of Research Excellence for Chronic Respiratory Disease, School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
Richard Wood-BakerSchool of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.
Julia Ae WaltersSchool of Medicine, University of Tasmania, MSP, 17 Liverpool Street, PO Box 23, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 7001.
University of Tasmania · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are a major driver of decline in health status and impose high costs on healthcare systems. Action plans offer a form of self-management that can be delivered in the outpatient setting to help individuals recognise and initiate early treatment for exacerbations, thereby reducing their impact.

objectivesTo compare effects of an action plan for COPD exacerbations provided with a single short patient education component and without a comprehensive self-management programme versus usual care. Primary outcomes were healthcare utilisation, mortality and medication use. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, psychological morbidity, lung function and cost-effectiveness. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register along with CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers. Searches are current to November 2015. We handsearched bibliographic lists and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-RCTs comparing use of an action plan versus usual care for patients with a clinical diagnosis of COPD. We permitted inclusion of a single short education component that would allow individualisation of action plans according to management needs and symptoms of people with COPD, as well as ongoing support directed at use of the action plan. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. For meta-analyses, we subgrouped studies via phone call follow-up directed at facilitating use of the action plan. MAIN

resultsThis updated review includes two additional studies (and 976 additional participants), for a total of seven parallel-group RCTs and 1550 participants, 66% of whom were male. Participants' mean age was 68 years and was similar among studies. Airflow obstruction was moderately severe in three studies and severe in four studies; mean post bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV AUTHORS'

conclusionsUse of COPD exacerbation action plans with a single short educational component along with ongoing support directed at use of the action plan, but without a comprehensive self-management programme, reduces in-hospital healthcare utilisation and increases treatment of COPD exacerbations with corticosteroids and antibiotics. Use of COPD action plans in this context is unlikely to increase or decrease mortality. Whether additional benefit is derived from periodic ongoing support directed at use of an action plan cannot be determined from the results of this review.

Indexed as

Patient Education as TopicSelf CareAgedBehavior TherapyDisease ProgressionFemaleHealth PromotionHealth Services Needs and DemandHospitalizationHumansMalePatient Care PlanningPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID27990628
PMCPMC6463844
OpenAlexW2565781381

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.