Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33170129›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2020

Diagnosing Chronic Obstructive Airway Disease on a Smartphone Using Patient-Reported Symptoms and Cough Analysis: Diagnostic Accuracy Study.

Paul Porter, Scott Claxton, Joanna Brisbane, Natasha Bear, Javan Wood, Vesa Peltonen, Phillip Della, Fiona Purdie, Claire Smith, Udantha Abeyratne

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Audio-based digital biomarkers in diagnosing and managing respiratory diseases: a systematic review and bibliometric analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Paul PorterJoondalup Health Campus, Perth, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9051-589X
Scott ClaxtonPartnering in Health Innovations Research Group, Joondalup Health Campus, Perth, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4849-1393
Joanna BrisbaneJoondalup Health Campus, Perth, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3364-5414
Natasha BearBear Statistics, Perth, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9311-4386
Javan WoodResApp Health, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4293-9302
Vesa PeltonenResApp Health, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6155-9954
Phillip DellaSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4288-4492
Fiona PurdiePartnering in Health Innovations Research Group, Joondalup Health Campus, Perth, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4182-1414
Claire SmithPartnering in Health Innovations Research Group, Joondalup Health Campus, Perth, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0607-7311
Udantha AbeyratneSchool of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0137-7996
Curtin University · AUQueensland University of Technology · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRapid and accurate diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is problematic in acute care settings, particularly in the presence of infective comorbidities.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to develop a rapid smartphone-based algorithm for the detection of COPD in the presence or absence of acute respiratory infection and evaluate diagnostic accuracy on an independent validation set.

methodsParticipants aged 40 to 75 years with or without symptoms of respiratory disease who had no chronic respiratory condition apart from COPD, chronic bronchitis, or emphysema were recruited into the study. The algorithm analyzed 5 cough sounds and 4 patient-reported clinical symptoms, providing a diagnosis in less than 1 minute. Clinical diagnoses were determined by a specialist physician using all available case notes, including spirometry where available.

resultsThe algorithm demonstrated high positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA) with clinical diagnosis for COPD in the total cohort (N=252; PPA=93.8%, NPA=77.0%, area under the curve [AUC]=0.95), in participants with pneumonia or infective exacerbations of COPD (n=117; PPA=86.7%, NPA=80.5%, AUC=0.93), and in participants without an infective comorbidity (n=135; PPA=100.0%, NPA=74.0%, AUC=0.97). In those who had their COPD confirmed by spirometry (n=229), PPA was 100.0% and NPA was 77.0%, with an AUC of 0.97.

conclusionsThe algorithm demonstrated high agreement with clinical diagnosis and rapidly detected COPD in participants presenting with or without other infective lung illnesses. The algorithm can be installed on a smartphone to provide bedside diagnosis of COPD in acute care settings, inform treatment regimens, and identify those at increased risk of mortality due to seasonal or other respiratory ailments.

trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618001521213; http://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=375939.

Indexed as

acute carediagnostic algorithmmedicinerespiratorytelehealth

Identifiers

PMID33170129
PMCPMC7685920
OpenAlexW3094392058

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.