SynthesisEuropean respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society2021
Performance of alternative COPD case-finding tools: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Burden of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in the US: A Systematic Review of Nationally Representative Health Surveys.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2026Pooled it
- 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
- Diagnostic performance of FEVChronic respiratory diseasePooled it
- Predictive performance of the PUMA questionnaire as an opportunistic COPD case-finding tool in Singapore primary care.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2026Observational
- Spatial epidemiological analysis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Qingdao City, China.Respiratory research · 2026Article
- Construction and Validation of Active Case-Finding Tool in Community Participants with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Using an Interpretable Machine Learning Approach.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2026Article
- An interpretable ensemble learning framework for COPD classification using population-based clinical and laboratory data from NHANES.Tobacco induced diseases · 2026Article
- Development and Validation of an Electronic Health Record Algorithm to Predict the Presence of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2026Article
- Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease screening using time-frequency features of self-recorded respiratory sounds.JAMIA open · 2025Article
- A Two-Staged, Risk-Stratified Strategy Combining FEVRespirology (Carlton, Vic.) · 2025Observational
- Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Detection: Hurdles and Struggles.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Pulmonary Immunocompromise in Human Immunodeficiency Virus Disease.Clinics in chest medicine · 2025Review
- Dynamic performance and scenario-based screening strategy of six COPD questionnaires: a cross-sectional study with prevalence-driven robustness validation.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in People with HIV: an Evidence-Based Review.HIV/AIDS (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Review
- Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Mild, Young and Early COPD: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of 5468 Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Using machine learning for early detection of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a narrative review.Respiratory research · 2024Review
- Early Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: The Costs and Benefits of Case Finding.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- HIV-associated lung disease.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2023Review
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 at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
rationaleGuidelines recommend pre-/post-bronchodilator spirometry for diagnosing COPD, but resource constraints limit the availability of spirometry in primary care in low- and middle-income countries. Although spirometry is the diagnostic gold standard, we shall assess alternative tools for settings without spirometry.
methodsA systematic literature review and meta-analysis was conducted, utilising Cochrane, CINAHL, Google Scholar, PubMed and Web of Science (search cut-off was May 01, 2020). Published studies comparing the accuracy of diagnostic tools for COPD with post-bronchodilator spirometry were considered. Studies without sensitivity/specificity data, without a separate validation sample and outside of primary care were excluded. Sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve (AUC) were assessed.
resultsOf 7578 studies, 24 were included (14 635 participants). Hand devices yielded a larger AUC than questionnaires. The meta-analysis included 17 studies and the overall AUC of micro-spirometers (0.84, 95% CI 0.80-0.89) was larger when compared to the COPD population screener (COPD-PS) questionnaire (0.77, 95% CI 0.63-0.85) and the COPD diagnostic questionnaire (CDQ) (0.72, 95% CI 0.64-0.78). However, only the difference between micro-spirometers and the CDQ was significant.
conclusionsThe CDQ and the COPD-PS questionnaire were approximately equally accurate tools. Questionnaires ensured testing of symptomatic patients, but micro-spirometers were more accurate. A combination could increase accuracy but was not evaluated in the meta-analysis.
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.