ArticleInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2017
Validity of physician-diagnosed COPD in relation to spirometric definitions of COPD in a general population aged 50-64 years - the SCAPIS pilot study.
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 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Estimating the global prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC public health · 2024Pooled it
- Association of inflammation and nutrition-based indicators with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and mortality.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2024Article
- Epidemiology, Ventilation Management and Outcomes of COPD Patients Receiving Invasive Ventilation for COVID-19-Insights from PRoVENT-COVID.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Ever Smoking is Not Associated with Performed Spirometry while Occupational Exposure and Respiratory Symptoms are.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2023Article
- Predictors for mortality due to acute exacerbation of COPD in primary care: Derivation of a clinical prediction rule in a multicentre cohort study.The European journal of general practice · 2021Article
- Occupational exposure to vapor, gas, dust, or fumes and chronic airflow limitation, COPD, and emphysema: the Swedish CArdioPulmonary BioImage Study (SCAPIS pilot).International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2017Article
- The burden of serious fungal infections in Azerbaijan.Therapeutic advances in infectious 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn epidemiological studies, items about physician-diagnosed COPD are often used. There is a lack of validation and standardization of these items. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn a general population-based study, 1,050 subjects completed a questionnaire and performed spirometry, including forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV
resultsFor the single item about physician-diagnosed COPD, the sensitivity was around 0.11 and the specificity was almost 0.99 in relation to COPD. The sensitivity of the combined items about COPD/emphysema in detecting COPD was 0.11 and the specificity was high, 0.985. When the items about physician-diagnosed COPD, emphysema or chronic bronchitis were merged as one entity, the sensitivity went up (0.13) and the specificity went down (0.95).
conclusionItems about physician-diagnosed COPD have low sensitivity but a very high specificity, indicating that these items will minimize the proportion of false positives. The low sensitivity will underestimate the total burden of COPD in the general population. Items about physician-diagnosed COPD may be used in studies of risk factors for COPD, but are not recommended in prevalence studies.
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.