ArticleInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2017
Validity and interpretation of spirometric recordings to diagnose COPD in UK primary care.
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 29 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
29 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trends in the incidence of atrial fibrillation and the prescription of oral anticoagulants in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in UK primary care (2010-2022): a cohort study.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Enhanced Spirometry in Primary Healthcare: Opportunities for Early Detection of Small Airway Dysfunction.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Methods for incorporating test result information within the high-dimensional propensity score framework: application in UK electronic health record data.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Between-practice variation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease diagnosis guideline compliance: an observational study.BJGP open · 2026Article
- COMPAIR: a comparison of directly supervised clinicERJ open research · 2025Article
- Serum Biomarkers and Gene Polymorphisms in COPD and COPD with T2DM Patients.Indian journal of clinical biochemistry : IJCB · 2025Article
- Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment: A Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Ever Smoking is Not Associated with Performed Spirometry while Occupational Exposure and Respiratory Symptoms are.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2023Article
- Identifying airway obstruction in primary care: is there a role for physiotherapists?BMC primary care · 2022Article
- Are we missing lifetime COPD diagnosis among people with COPD recorded death? A population-based retrospective cohort study.BJGP open · 2022Article
- Novel antihyperglycaemic drugs and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations among patients with type 2 diabetes: population based cohort study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2022Article
- Comparison of COPD primary care in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2022Article
- Frailty in COPD: an analysis of prevalence and clinical impact using UK Biobank.BMJ open respiratory research · 2022Article
- Assessment and diagnosis of chronic dyspnoea: a literature review.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2022Review
- COPD - do the right thing.BMC family practice · 2021Review
- Accelerated FEVThe European respiratory journal · 2021Article
- Electronic Medical Record-Based Case Phenotyping for the Charlson Conditions: Scoping Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2021Article
- Challenges and Pitfalls of Using Repeat Spirometry Recordings in Routine Primary Care Data to Measure FEVPragmatic and observational research · 2021Article
- Spirometry in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Norwegian general practice.BMC family practice · 2020Article
- Association between COPD exacerbations and lung function decline during maintenance therapy.Thorax · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe diagnosis of COPD is dependent upon clinical judgment and confirmation of the presence of airflow obstruction using spirometry. Spirometry is now routinely available; however, spirometry incorrectly performed or interpreted can lead to misdiagnosis. We aimed to determine whether spirometry undertaken in primary care for patients suspected to have COPD was of sufficient quality and whether their spirometry was correctly interpreted.
methodsTwo chest physicians re-read all spirometric readings for both quality of the procedure and interpretation, received as a part of COPD validation studies using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). We then used logistic regression to investigate predictors of correct interpretation.
resultsSpirometry traces were obtained for 306 patients, of which 221 (72.2%) were conducted in primary care. Of those conducted in primary care, 98.6% (n=218) of spirometry traces were of adequate quality. Of those traces that were of adequate quality and conducted in primary care, and in whom a general practitioner (GP) diagnosis of COPD had been made, 72.5% (n=218) were consistent with obstruction. Historical records for asthma diagnosis significantly decreased odds of correct interpretation.
conclusionThe quality of the spirometry procedure undertaken in primary care is high. However, this was not reflected in the quality of interpretation, suggesting an unmet training in primary care. The quality of the spirometry procedure as demonstrated by spirometric tracings provides a re-assurance for the use of spirometric values available in the electronic health care record databases for research purposes.
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.