Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35536261›Full record

SynthesisJAMA2022

Screening for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Elizabeth M Webber, Jennifer S Lin, Rachel G Thomas

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Prospective COPD Case Finding in a Lung Cancer Screening Program: A Pilot Study.Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (Miami, Fla.) · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Distribution of two CD4Scientific reports · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Detection: Hurdles and Struggles.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Elizabeth M WebberKaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, Oregon.
Jennifer S LinKaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, Oregon.
Rachel G ThomasKaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, Oregon.
Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research · US

Funding

AHRQ HHS HHSA290201200015IAHRQ HHS HHSA290201500007I
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the US. Objective: To conduct a targeted systematic review to update the evidence on the effectiveness of screening for COPD and the treatment of COPD to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) update of the 2016 recommendation statement on COPD screening. Data Sources: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL for relevant studies published between January 1, 2015, to January 22, 2021; surveillance through March 25, 2022. Study Selection: English-language studies of screening in individuals who do not recognize or report respiratory symptoms; studies of treatment in persons with mild or moderate, or minimally symptomatic, COPD. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently appraised the articles and extracted relevant data from fair- or good-quality studies; no quantitative synthesis was conducted. Main Outcomes and Measures: COPD-related morbidity or mortality, measures of health-related quality of life, and adverse events. Results: The review included no trials on the effectiveness of screening, 3 trials or analyses (n = 20 058) of pharmacologic treatment published since 2015, 13 trials (n = 3657) on nonpharmacologic interventions, and 2 large observational studies (n = 243 517) addressing the harms of pharmacologic treatment published since 2015. The results from the clinical trials of pharmacologic therapy are consistent with the previous review supporting the USPSTF that bronchodilators with or without inhaled corticosteroids can reduce COPD exacerbations and tiotropium can improve health-related quality of life in adults with moderate COPD. Overall, there was no consistent benefit observed for any type of nonpharmacologic intervention across a range of patient outcomes. None of the included treatment trials that reported adverse effects found significant harms. Two large observational studies in a screen-relevant population demonstrated an association of the initiation of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist or long-acting beta agonist with the risk of a serious cardiovascular event in treatment-naïve patients and an association of inhaled corticosteroids use with the risk of developing diabetes. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this targeted evidence update are generally consistent with the findings of the previous systematic review supporting the 2016 USPSTF recommendation. Evidence of pharmacologic treatment was still largely limited to persons with moderate airflow obstruction, and there was no consistent benefit observed for a range of nonpharmacologic interventions in mild to moderate COPD or in minimally symptomatic persons with COPD.

Indexed as

Mass ScreeningPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveAdrenergic beta-AgonistsAdultAdvisory CommitteesBronchodilator AgentsGlucocorticoidsHumansMuscarinic AntagonistsQuality of LifeTiotropium BromideUnited StatesAdrenergic beta-AgonistsBronchodilator AgentsGlucocorticoidsMuscarinic AntagonistsTiotropium Bromide

Identifiers

PMID35536261
PMCPMC13035042
OpenAlexW4229452763

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.