Observational studyPloS one2018
Characteristics and risk factors for inconsistency between the risk of exacerbations and the severity of airflow limitation in COPD based on GOLD 2017: A retrospective, cross-sectional study.
Observational study in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical implications of wheezing in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Journal of thoracic disease · 2023Article
- Impact of Previous Pulmonary Tuberculosis on Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Baseline Results from a Prospective Cohort Study.Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening · 2023Article
- Swiss Experience in Therapy With Dual Bronchodilation in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Relation to Self-Reported Physical Functionality.Journal of clinical medicine research · 2021Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThe clinical implications of the discordance between the risk of exacerbations and the level of airflow limitation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are still unknown. This study aimed to clarify the clinical significance of such discordance in the management of COPD by exploring its characteristics and risk factors.
methodsIn this retrospective, cross-sectional study, participating physicians completed a detailed patient record form for each participating outpatient with COPD. The data, collected by the Taiwan Obstructive Lung Disease consortium, were managed and analyzed.
resultsOf the enrolled participants, 316 (41.7%) had an inconsistency between the risk of exacerbations and the severity of airflow limitation. Univariate analysis showed that more severe airflow limitation (p = 0.000), higher COPD assessment test (CAT) scores (p = 0.003) and modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) scales (p = 0.008), and the presence of at least one (p = 0.000) or two (p = 0.003) co-morbidities were significantly associated with such inconsistency. More severe airflow limitation (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 3 and 4 classification; odds ratio (OR) = 27.09, p = 0.000 and OR = 25.15, p = 0.000, respectively) and the presence of at least one co-morbidity (OR = 2.01, p = 0.001) were still associated with the inconsistency in multivariate logistic regression analysis. Furthermore, the presence of wheezing (OR = 3.90, p = 0.000) and at least two co-morbidities (OR = 5.43, p = 0.005) were independent risk factors for an inconsistency of a high risk of exacerbations / GOLD 1 or 2 and the CAT score≧10 (OR = 1.58, p = 0.007), mMRC scale 2-4 (OR = 1.53, p = 0.017), and the presence of at least one co-morbidity (OR = 2.55, p = 0.000) for an inconsistency of a low risk of exacerbations / GOLD 3 or 4.
conclusionsThe patients with COPD and an inconsistency between the risk of exacerbations and level of airflow limitation had unique clinical characteristics and risk factors for this inconsistency. Management of these patients should include more detailed evaluations.
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.