ArticlePulmonary therapy2021
Use of a Digital Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Respiratory Tracker in a Primary Care Setting: A Feasibility Study.
Article in Pulmonary therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The State of the Art of eHealth Self-Management Interventions for People With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Digital health technologies for improving the management of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
- Rome Criteria for Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Not Built in a Day.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2022Article
- Analyzing the Treatment of Patients with Acute Exacerbation of COPD with the Aid of Intelligent Diagnosis Method.Journal of healthcare engineering · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTelemonitoring is a promising self-management strategy to improve health care outcomes. This study evaluated real-world adoption of the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) Co-Pilot daily symptom monitoring tool by patients and primary care providers (PCPs).
methodsAn open-label, 6-month, single-arm, multicenter, noninterventional feasibility study enrolled 97 patients aged ≥ 40 years with symptomatic or poorly controlled COPD and ≥ 10 pack-year smoking history. Patients received smartphones and training to use the COPD Co-Pilot application. During the study, patients tracked symptoms daily; an increase in symptom score of ≥ 1.0 point from baseline (symptom alert) prompted patients to contact their PCP via toll-free number. The primary endpoint was time to clinical recommendation (TTCR) from a symptom alert; adherence to completing daily symptom reports through the COPD Co-Pilot application and patient satisfaction were also measured.
resultsOverall, 87 of 96 patients (90.6%) received 2142 symptom alerts; 42 alerts (equivalent to 2% of all symptom alerts) resulted in 23 patients contacting their PCP. Median TTCR was 7.1 h (interquartile range [IQR]: 4.0-29.9). Among 15 patients using the toll-free number, median TTCR was 2.1 h (IQR 0.0-7.2) versus 19.6 h (IQR 4.5-45.2) for eight patients using other contact methods. Average COPD Co-Pilot adherence overall was 75.2% (95% CI 74.6-75.9). Patients responded favorably regarding the application's ease of use, functionality, and information provided.
conclusionsThe COPD Co-Pilot tool was associated with relatively high levels of adherence, suggesting patients' willingness to monitor symptoms daily. Although a limited number of patients initiated PCP contact, patients who used the study-provided toll-free number had substantially shorter median TTCR, suggesting that this tool could help empower patients to better manage their COPD.
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.