ArticleInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2017
Inhaled treatment of COPD: a Delphi consensus statement.
Article in International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effects of different inhalation therapies on less symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients in a Chinese population: a real-world study.Annals of medicine · 2023Observational
- Investigating the rationale for COPD maintenance therapy prescription across Europe, findings from a multi-country study.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2023Article
- The Prescribing Practice for COPD: Relationship to Circadian Rhythm, Disease Severity, and Clinical Phenotype in the STORICO Observational Study.Advances in therapy · 2022Observational
- An analysis of the dynamic changes in the self-efficacy and quality of life of elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease following community-based rehabilitation.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
- Early management of COPD: where are we now and where do we go from here? A Delphi consensus project.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseReview
- The future exacerbation and mortality of different inhalation therapies among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in various GOLD groups: a focus on the GOLD 2017 and GOLD 2023 reports.Therapeutic advances in 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
10 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGlobal Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) global strategy (2015) provides guidance for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with different first-choice options per GOLD category without specification.
objectivesTo evaluate the level of medical experts' consensus on their preferred first-choice treatment within different COPD categories.
methodsA two-round Delphi Panel consisting of 15 questions was completed by Belgian pulmonologists (n=31) and European (n=10) COPD experts.
resultsGood consensus was reached by both expert groups for long-acting bronchodilators instead of short-acting bronchodilators as first-choice treatment in GOLD A. Single bronchodilation with long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) was preferred over long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) and LABA/LAMA as first-choice treatment in GOLD B and GOLD C. For GOLD D patients based on the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV
conclusionBelgian and European experts recommend long-acting bronchodilators as first-choice treatment. Treatment containing ICS was found only appropriate in patients with FEV
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.