ArticleInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2023
Comparative Study on Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Screening Tools in Primary Healthcare Institutions in Beijing, China.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic performance of FEVChronic respiratory diseasePooled it
- A cough sound-based deep learning algorithm for accessible prompt detection of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with smartphones.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2026Article
- COPD-Lung Cancer Comorbidity: Mechanistic Insights and Precision Oncology Implications.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2026Review
- Screening of COPD patients using the COPD diagnostic questionnaire and a portable spirometer in primary healthcare institutions: a cross-sectional, diagnostic study.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Article
- 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
- Application and Prospects of Artificial Intelligence Technology in Early Screening of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease at Primary Healthcare Institutions in China.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2024Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has a high incidence rate in China, but the diagnosis rate remains insufficient. This study aimed to explore and compare COPD screening tools for primary healthcare institutions in China. Purpose: Exploring COPD Screening Tools and Their Combined Use for Primary Healthcare Institutions in China. Patients and Methods: From September 2022 to March 2023, a screening for COPD was conducted among residents aged 35 years and above in primary healthcare institutions in Beijing, China. The screening involved the use of the CAPTURE scale, COPD-SQ scale, and peak expiratory flow rate test. Any positive results from these screening tests were followed by further pulmonary function testing to confirm the diagnosis. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated for each screening tool alone and in combination. Results: A total of 986 individuals completed the screening tests. The positive rates for the CAPTURE scale, COPD-SQ scale, and peak flow meter screening were 41.78%, 29.11%, and 52.03%, respectively. Of the participants, 166 (24.09%) underwent pulmonary function tests, with an average age of 61.69±13.68 years. The peak flow meter screening showed the highest sensitivity (83.78%) when used alone, while the COPD-SQ scale exhibited the best specificity (59.69%), positive predictive value (31.58%), and negative predictive value (58.56%). Significant differences (P<0.05) were observed between any two of the three screening tools. Among the combinations, the peak flow meter screening + COPD-SQ scale showed the highest accuracy, with a Youden index of 0.277 and an AUC of 0.638. Conclusion: There is variation in the accuracy of existing screening tools for COPD when used alone. For primary healthcare institutions, the optimal COPD screening tool is the combination of peak flow meter screening and the COPD-SQ questionnaire. If limited by screening equipment conditions, the COPD-SQ questionnaire can be used alone for 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.