Trial reportInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Tool to assess the efficacy of acute treatment.
Trial report in International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real-World and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Dupilumab and Other Biological Drugs for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease-A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Treating acute exacerbations of COPD with Chinese herbal medicine to aid antibiotic use reduction (Excalibur): a randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled feasibility trial.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Towards precision in defining COPD exacerbations.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2021Review
- Clinical Role of the Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Assessment Test in Prediction of the Response to Treatment for Exacerbations.Journal of Korean medical science · 2020Article
- An overview of exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Can tests of small airways' function guide diagnosis and management?Annals of thoracic medicineReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveThe Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Tool-Patient-Reported Outcomes (EXACT-PRO) has been suggested as a reliable and valid measure for early assessment of COPD exacerbations and perceived recovery. However, there has been no evidence for EXACT-PRO efficacy in assessing recovery from treatment in a randomized controlled trial. The study evaluated the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of EXACT-PRO for the evaluation of the efficacy of acute treatment in patients with COPD exacerbation.
methodsIn a Phase III randomized controlled study for assessing the efficacy of antibiotic treatment on COPD exacerbation, EXACT-PRO was evaluated in the responders and non-responders.
resultsA total of 295 patients were analyzed (259 responders and 37 non-responders). Cronbach's α was 0.96 for EXACT total, 0.96 for the breathlessness domain, 0.89 for the cough and sputum domain, and 0.93 for the chest symptoms domain. The EXACT score correlated with the COPD assessment test (CAT) score (
conclusionEXACT-PRO is a comprehensive and sensitive method for assessing symptomatic resolution of COPD exacerbations during treatment.
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.