ArticleNPJ primary care respiratory medicine2022
Comparison of COPD primary care in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
Article in NPJ primary care respiratory medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Status of COPD in Saudi Arabia: challenges, gaps, and opportunities for health system transformation.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- E-cigarette use among individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Tackling NHS winter pressures due to respiratory disease: the UK Centre for Applied Respiratory Research Innovation and Impact (CARRii).NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2026Review
- Health coaching for people with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A commentary on a systematic review.The coaching psychologist · 2025Article
- Multi-domain rule-based phenotyping algorithms enable improved GWAS signal.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Currently the National Asthma and COPD audit programme (NACAP) only undertakes audit of COPD primary care in Wales due to its near complete data coverage. We aimed to determine if the quality of COPD primary care in the other UK nations is comparable with Wales. We found that English, Scottish, and Northern Irish practices were significantly worse than Welsh practices at recording coded lung function parameters used in COPD diagnosis (ORs: 0.51 [0.43-0.59], 0.29 [0.23-0.36], 0.42 [0.31-0.58], respectively) and referring appropriate patients for pulmonary rehabilitation (ORs: 0.10 [0.09-0.11], 0.12 [0.11-0.14], 0.22 [0.19-0.25], respectively). Completing national audits of primary care in Wales only may have led to improvements in care, or at least improvements in the recording of care in Wales that are not occurring elsewhere in the UK. This highlights the potential importance of audit in improving care quality and accurate recording of that care.
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.