ArticleNPJ primary care respiratory medicine2023
Diagnostic spirometry in COPD is increasing, a comparison of two Swedish cohorts.
Article in NPJ primary care respiratory medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- An interpretable ensemble learning framework for COPD classification using population-based clinical and laboratory data from NHANES.Tobacco induced diseases · 2026Article
- Article
- Challenges and Opportunities for the Management of COPD: A Narrative Review of Patient and Health Care Professional Perspectives.Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (Miami, Fla.) · 2025Article
- Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy in Primary Care Across Europe: Expert Panel Consensus on the Consequences of Payer-Driven Access Rules and Call to Action.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2025Review
- Cardiovascular Risk in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- The Increased Burden of Morbidity Over the Life-Course Among Patients with COPD: A Register-Based Cohort Study in Sweden.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 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
12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spirometry should be used to confirm a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This test is not always performed, leading to possible misdiagnosis. We investigated whether the proportion of patients with diagnostic spirometry has increased over time as well as factors associated with omitted or incorrectly interpreted spirometry. Data from medical reviews and a questionnaire from primary and secondary care patients with a doctors' diagnosis of COPD between 2004 and 2010 were collected. Data were compared with a COPD cohort diagnosed between 2000 and 2003. Among 703 patients with a first diagnosis of COPD between 2004 and 2010, 88% had a diagnostic spirometry, compared with 59% (p < 0.001) in the previous cohort. Factors associated with not having diagnostic spirometry were current smoking (OR 2.21; 95% CI 1.36-3.60), low educational level (OR 1.81; 1.09-3.02) and management in primary care (OR 2.28; 1.02-5.14). The correct interpretation of spirometry results increased (75% vs 82%; p = 0.010). Among patients with a repeated spirometry, 94% had a persistent FEV
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.