Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30050297›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2018

COPD phenotypes: differences in survival.

Julio Hernández Vázquez, Ismael Ali García, Rodrigo Jiménez-García, Alejandro Álvaro Meca, Ana López de Andrés, Carmen Matesanz Ruiz, María Jesús Buendía García, Javier de Miguel Díez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. RETRO-POPE: A Retrospective, Multicenter, Real-World Study of All-Cause Mortality in COPD.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Influence of Comorbidities on the Survival of COPD Patients According to Phenotypes.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2020
    Observational
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Julio Hernández VázquezRespiratory Department, Hospital Universitario Infanta Leonor, Madrid, Spain.
Ismael Ali GarcíaRespiratory Department, Hospital Universitario Infanta Leonor, Madrid, Spain.
Rodrigo Jiménez-GarcíaPreventive Medicine and Public Health Teaching and Research Unit, Health Sciences Faculty, Rey Juan Carlos University, Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain, rodrigo.jimenez@urjc.es.
Alejandro Álvaro MecaPreventive Medicine and Public Health Teaching and Research Unit, Health Sciences Faculty, Rey Juan Carlos University, Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain, rodrigo.jimenez@urjc.es.
Ana López de AndrésPreventive Medicine and Public Health Teaching and Research Unit, Health Sciences Faculty, Rey Juan Carlos University, Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain, rodrigo.jimenez@urjc.es.
Carmen Matesanz RuizRespiratory Department, Hospital Universitario Infanta Leonor, Madrid, Spain.
María Jesús Buendía GarcíaRespiratory Department, Hospital Universitario Infanta Leonor, Madrid, Spain.
Javier de Miguel DíezRespiratory Department, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM), Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón (IiSGM), Madrid, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The aim of the study was to analyze the characteristics and survival of a group of patients with COPD according to their clinical phenotype. Patients and methods: The study population was selected from patients undergoing scheduled spirometry between January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2011 at the respiratory function laboratory of a teaching hospital and comprised those with a previous and confirmed diagnosis of COPD and forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV Results: We recruited 273 patients, of whom 89% were men. The distribution by phenotype was as follows: non-exacerbator, 47.2%; positive bronchodilator response, 25.8%; exacerbator with chronic bronchitis, 13.8%; and exacerbator with emphysema, 13.0%. A total of 90 patients died during follow-up (32.9%). Taking patients with a positive bronchodilator response as the reference category, the risk factors that were independently associated with death were older age (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.09), lower FEV Conclusion: Classification of COPD patients by phenotype makes it possible to identify subgroups with different prognoses. Thus, mortality was greater in exacerbators with chronic bronchitis and lower in those with a positive bronchodilator response.

Indexed as

PhenotypeAgedAge FactorsBronchitis, ChronicBronchodilator AgentsDisease ProgressionFemaleForced Expiratory VolumeHumansMalePulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructivePulmonary EmphysemaBronchodilator Agentschronic bronchitisCOPDemphysemaexacerbatormortalityphenotypespositive bronchodilator response

Identifiers

PMID30050297
PMCPMC6055897

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.