ArticleTanaffos2020
Validity and Reliability of COPD-6 Device for Detecting Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in High-Risk Individuals.
Article in Tanaffos, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- How to Enhance the Diagnosis of Early Stages of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)? The Role of Mobile Spirometry in COPD Screening and Diagnosis-A Systematic Review.Advances in respiratory medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Accuracy of portable spirometers in the diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease A meta-analysis.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Precision and accuracy of FEV1 measurements from the Vitalograph copd-6 mini-spirometer in a healthy Ugandan population.PloS one · 2021Trial
- Validity of the Handheld Expiratory Flowmeter for COPD Screening in the Primary Care Setting of China.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe current study was done to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Vitalograph COPD-6 portable device for detecting chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in high-risk individuals in Iran. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis research was a cross-sectional descriptive study. Forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), and FEV1/FVC using standard spirometer and FEV1, FEV6, and FEV1/FEV6 with COPD- 6 device were measured and recorded. Descriptive analysis was done.
results19 of 122 patients (15.6%) were diagnosed with COPD. The COPD-6 had an acceptable performance for detecting COPD as assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (0.72 ; 95% CI: 0.42-0.86), with an average sensitivity of 84% and specificity of 98%, positive predictive value of 89%, and negative predictive value of 97%. The positive likelihood ratio resulted was 42 and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.16.
conclusionCOPD-6 is a validate and reliable device for detecting COPD in non-specialized health care settings and the best cut-off point for FEV1/FEV6 ratio is 0.72.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33815540PMC8008408W3150971578What 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.