ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2021
Diagnostic accuracy of screening tools for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary health care: Rapid evidence synthesis.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Definitions of early COPD and predictors for disease progression: a systematic review.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026Pooled it
- CAPTURE and PUMA as Case-Finding Tools in Patients at Risk of COPD-A Multicenter Mexican Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Low- and middle- income countries have a different illness profile.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) contributed significantly to burden of diseases in India, with missed, incorrect, and delayed diagnosis in primary care. We conducted a rapid evidence synthesis, to summarize the evidence on accuracy of the screening tests for COPD in primary health care on request form State Health Resource Centre, Chhattisgarh.
methodsConsidering the rapid nature of decision making, our approach was to first search for existing systematic reviews. We identified one existing systematic review on the topic with the search conducted until 2014. We updated the review by searching in two major databases screened, title/abstracts, and full texts of studies as per eligibility criteria and extracted relevant data. A narrative synthesis was conducted.
resultsWe retrieved 7,007 and included five new studies, to add to 10 studies of the existing systematic review. Overall, 13 studies assessed diagnostic accuracy of screening questionnaires [e.g., COPD Diagnostic Questionnaire (CDQ)], five assessed handheld flow meters (COPD6 and PICO-6), and four assessed the combination of both the tests. The CDQ questionnaire using a score threshold ≥16.5 or >17 demonstrated comparatively a higher sensitivity both in pooled result for ever-smokers [87.5% (95% CI 83.1--90.9%)] and among the adults >35 years [73.8--93% (95% CI 69--98%)] when compared to a different score threshold of CDQ and other questionnaires. Handheld flow meters reported a pooled high sensitivity of 79.9% (95% CI 74.2--84.7%) in ever-smokers and 87.9% in adults with age >35 years.
conclusionsThe need for better diagnosis of COPD in primary healthcare can be addressed by using of COPD Diagnostic Questionnaire alone or in combination with hand-held flow meters. There is scope for more implementation research on the domain.
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.