SynthesisJournal of Korean medical science2022
The Effectiveness and Harms of Screening for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of Korean medical science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- How accurate should a precision medical test be to meet cost-effectiveness.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2026Article
- The national COPD screening programme in China: rationale and design.ERJ open research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to perform meta-analyses to update a previous systematic review (SR) conducted by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in asymptomatic adults.
methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and regional databases were searched from their inception to January 2020. Studies for diagnostic accuracy, preventive services effect, treatment efficacy, and treatment harms were included.
resultsEighteen studies were included, and twelve of these were newly added in this update. In meta-analyses, the pooled sensitivity and specificity for COPD diagnosis using spirometry were 73.4% and 89.0%, respectively. The relative effect of smoking cessation intervention with screening spirometry, presented as abstinence rate, was not statistically significant (risk ratio [RR], 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-1.67) when all selected studies were pooled, but screening on smoking cessation was effective (RR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.14-2.19) when limited to studies with smoking cessation programs that provided smoking cessation medicines or intensive counseling at public health centers or medical institutions.
conclusionIn this study, no direct evidence for the impact on health outcomes of screening asymptomatic adults for COPD was identified similar to the previous SR. Further research is necessary to confirm the benefits of COPD screening.
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.