ReviewRespiratory research2018
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease guidelines in Europe: a look into the future.
Review in Respiratory research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Respiratory research · 2019Pooled it
- Perspectives and Attitudes of General Practitioners Towards Pharmacological and Non-Pharmacological COPD Management in a Belgian Primary Care Setting: A Qualitative Study.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2023Article
- Article
- Individual trajectory-based care for COPD: getting closer, but not there yet.ERJ open research · 2021Review
- Gaps in COPD Guidelines of Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Scoping Review.Chest · 2021Article
- Differences in Baseline Characteristics and Access to Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Patients With IPF in the EMPIRE Countries.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Management of cardiovascular comorbidities in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Review
- Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in Spain and the different aspects of its social impact: a multidisciplinary opinion document.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2020Article
- Understanding resource utilization and mortality in COPD to support policy making: A microsimulation study.PloS one · 2020Article
- Airway epithelial cell differentiation relies on deficient Hedgehog signalling in COPD.EBioMedicine · 2020Article
- Systematic Review of Pain in Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of COPD: A Case for Including Chronic Pain?Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical practice guidelines are ubiquitous and are developed to provide recommendations for the management of many diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The development of these guidelines is burdensome, demanding a significant investment of time and money. In Europe, the majority of countries develop their own national guidelines, despite the potential for overlap or duplication of effort. A concerted effort and consolidation of resources between countries may alleviate the resource-intensity of maintaining individual national guidelines. Despite significant resource investment into the development and maintenance of clinical practice guidelines, their implementation is suboptimal. Effective strategies of guideline dissemination must be given more consideration, to ensure adequate implementation and improved patient care management in the future.
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.