ReviewClinical medicine (London, England)2017
Chronic respiratory disease - the acceptable epidemic?
Review in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lung Disease and Social Justice: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease as a Manifestation of Structural Violence.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2024Article
- Impact of omitting annual reviews for COPD on patient reported care quality- outcomes from the Asthma+Lung COPD patient passport.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Advances and applications of monoolein as a novel nanomaterial in mitigating chronic lung diseases.Journal of drug delivery science and technology · 2022Review
- Towards precision in defining COPD exacerbations.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2021Review
- Geostatistical predictive modeling for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease using socioeconomic and environmental determinants.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2019Article
- The Impact ofIn vivo (Athens, Greece)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major cause of disability and death in the UK but is an even greater problem in low income countries. It is assumed by many to be almost entirely attributed to smoking. However, smoking alone cannot account for the distribution of the disease in the world and there is accumulating evidence that the disease is overwhelmingly a disease of poverty. The size of the problem and the failure of current hypotheses to explain the distribution of chronic lung disease make the lack of funding in this area surprising. The failure of science funders to respond to the analysis of the Cooksey report, which pointed out the extreme discrepancy between the size of the problem and the paucity of research funding, represents a serious failure in science policy. The lack of urgency in the face of such a large burden of illness suggests a degree of complacency in the face of a disease that is overwhelmingly a disease of the poor.
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.