ArticleClinical drug investigation2019
Effectiveness of an Intervention to Improve Management of COPD using the AUDIT Methodology: Results of the Neumo-Advance Study.
Article in Clinical drug investigation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Estimating the Prevalence of AATD Patients in the UK to Identify Underdiagnosis and Determine the Eligibility for Potential Augmentation Therapy.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2023Article
- Obstacles to Early Diagnosis and Treatment of Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency: Current Perspectives.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveThe implementation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) guidelines in the real-world setting remains low. Pulmonologists should participate in the new paradigms of chronicity of COPD, by providing their knowledge, expertise, innovation and research. The objective of this study was to survey pulmonologists on the adherence to COPD guidelines and to measure the change of attitude after holding meetings presenting the latest research on the subject.
methodsFifty questions on COPD management were sent to 150 pulmonologists. Using the AUDIT methodology, the responses were discussed at several face-to-face meetings, held in different autonomous communities of Spain. The same questionnaire was subsequently sent to the participants and changes in their responses were analysed.
resultsIn total, 148 physicians (60.1% female) completed study. The main responses were: (1) 16.2% diagnose following clinical criteria; (2) 78.4% performed diagnostic tests other than spirometry; (3) 73.6% always determined alpha-1 antitrypsin levels (81.8% in the second questionnaire, p < 0.05); (4) 73% determined the patient's phenotype; (5) 42% always asked about passive exposure to cigarette smoke (55% after the meetings, p < 0.05); (6) 58.1% always asked about exposure to other pollutants or biomass; (7) 29.1% always assessed inhalational technique; (8) dual bronchodilators were the most common treatment (49.3%) used for patients with frequent exacerbator phenotype, glycopyrronium + indacaterol being the preferred option (44.1%); (9) 41.2% discontinued inhaled corticosteroids treatment (54.7% in the second questionnaire, p < 0.05); (10) for exacerbation admissions, 52% replaced maintenance bronchodilators with short-acting agents and introduced early background treatment (58.8% in the second round, p < 0.05). Few variations occurred in the participants' answers after the meetings.
conclusionsThe adherence of pulmonologists to clinical practice recommendations for COPD management is suboptimal. As well as face-to-face meetings, more intensive interventions are required to raise awareness on the importance of improving compliance with clinical guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31037610What 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.