ArticleInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Prediction of Mortality Using Different COPD Risk Assessments - A 12-Year Follow-Up.
Article 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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comorbid asthma - occurrence and associations with patient-related outcomes in COPD: a cohort study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2027Article
- Broca's area, responsible for speech production, is regulated by lung function.Neural regeneration research · 2026Article
- RiskPath: Explainable deep learning for multistep biomedical prediction in longitudinal data.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- The DOSE index in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: evaluating healthcare costs.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2024Article
- Comparison of BODE and ADO Indices in Predicting COPD-Related Medical Costs.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- The Impact of the Age, Dyspnoea, and Airflow Obstruction (ADO) Index on the Medical Burden of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD).Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA multidimensional approach in the risk assessment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is preferable. The aim of this study is to compare the prognostic ability for mortality by different COPD assessment systems; spirometric staging, classification by GOLD 2011, GOLD 2017, the age, dyspnea, obstruction (ADO) and the dyspnea, obstruction, smoking, exacerbation (DOSE) indices. PATIENTS AND
methodsA total of 490 patients diagnosed with COPD were recruited from primary and secondary care in central Sweden in 2005. The cohort was followed until 2017. Data for categorization using the different assessment systems were obtained through questionnaire data from 2005 and medical record reviews between 2000 and 2003. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses and Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess mortality risk. Receiver operating characteristic curves estimated areas under the curve (AUC) to evaluate each assessment systems´ ability to predict mortality.
resultsBy the end of follow-up, 49% of the patients were deceased. The mortality rate was higher for patients categorized as stage 3-4, GOLD D in both GOLD classifications and those with a DOSE score above 4 and ADO score above 8. The ADO index was most accurate for predicting mortality, AUC 0.79 (95% CI 0.75-0.83) for all-cause mortality and 0.80 (95% CI 0.75-0.85) for respiratory mortality. The AUC values for stages 1-4, GOLD 2011, GOLD 2017 and DOSE index were 0.73, 0.66, 0.63 and 0.69, respectively, for all-cause mortality.
conclusionAll of the risk assessment systems predict mortality. The ADO index was in this study the best predictor and could be a helpful tool in COPD risk assessment.
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.