ArticleAtencion primaria2018
[Is the introduction of clinical management programs for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease useful? Comparison of the effectiveness of two interventions on the clinical progress and care received].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of two management programs on patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
designA study with a quasi-experimental design was used to evaluate the effectiveness of two interventions (I1, I2) for the care of patients with COPD after a mean follow-up of 31.2months.
settingPrimary Care Centres in two Barcelona Health Areas and their referral hospitals.
participantsPatients with COPD selected by simple random sampling using any disease code corresponding to COPD.
interventionsI1: Integrated management program that was optimised and coordinated the resources. Training was given, as well as quality control of spirometry. I2: Isolated interventions like a call-centre. Care circuits and computerised clinical notes were shared. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Variables were recorded as regards lung function, severity, use of inhalers, lifestyles, quality of life, and exacerbations.
resultsOf the 393 patients evaluated at the beginning, 120 and 104 (I1 and I2, respectively) received the final evaluation. With I1, there was a reduction in patients who smoked (P=.034). Lung function and quality of life did not change significantly in either group, but shortness of breath was slightly worse. There was an increase in the correct use of inhalers, although it only reached 48% and 61% with interventions I1 and I2, respectively. The percentage of patients with exacerbations decreased with I1 compared to that of I2 (P<.001), and there were less hospital admissions due to exacerbations with I2 compared to I1 (P<.003]).
conclusionsBoth interventions achieved significant improvements, and no overall worsening of a chronic and progressive disease as is COPD.
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.