ArticleInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2023
Comparing the Performance of Two Screening Questionnaires for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in the Chinese General Population.
Article in International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- External validation of an IOS-derived model for airflow obstruction and COPD in a community-based cohort.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2026Article
- Comparing the accuracy of CDQ, CAPTURE, LFQ, COPD-PS, COPD-SQ and SCSQ questionnaires for COPD screening in a hospital-facilitated community screening Iranian population.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2026Article
- Impulse oscillometry-derived equation for prediction of abnormal FEVThe Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025Article
- Dynamic performance and scenario-based screening strategy of six COPD questionnaires: a cross-sectional study with prevalence-driven robustness validation.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of population-based screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in China: a simulation modeling study.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2024Article
- Screening performance of COPD-PS scale, COPD-SQ scale, peak expiratory flow, and their combinations for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the primary healthcare in Haicang District, Xiamen City.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Screening questionnaires can help identify individuals at a high risk of COPD. This study aimed to compare the performance of the COPD population screener (COPD-PS) and COPD screening questionnaire (COPD-SQ) on the general population as a full cohort and stratified by urbanization. Methods: We recruited subjects who underwent a health checkup at urban and rural community health centers in Beijing. All eligible subjects completed the COPD-PS and COPD-SQ, then spirometry. Spirometry-defined COPD was defined as a post-bronchodilator FEV Results: We identified 129 spirometry-defined and 92 symptomatic COPD cases out of 1350 enrolled subjects. The optimal cut-off score for the COPD-PS was 4 for spirometry-defined and 5 for symptomatic COPD. The optimum cut-off score for the COPD-SQ was 15 for both spirometry-defined and symptomatic COPD. The COPD-PS and COPD-SQ had similar AUC values for spirometry-defined (0.672 vs 0.702) and symptomatic COPD (0.734 vs 0.779). The AUC of the COPD-SQ tended to be higher in rural areas than that of the COPD-PS for spirometry-defined COPD (0.700 vs 0.653, Conclusion: The COPD-PS and COPD-SQ had comparable discriminatory power for detecting COPD in the general population while the COPD-SQ performed better in rural areas. A pilot study for validating and comparing the diagnostic accuracy of different questionnaires is required when screening for COPD in a new environment.
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.