ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2023
Clinical implications of wheezing in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Never-Smokers-A Distinct Entity Within the COPD Spectrum.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Prognostic risk profiling in COPD using Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2023 ABE and comorbidity assessment: evidence from a register-based COPD cohort.Journal of global health · 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
9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Studies on the prevalence of wheezing in both the asthma-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) overlap (ACO) and non-ACO groups, as well as the clinical characteristics of wheezing patients in each group, are rare. We examined the prevalence of wheezing in ACO patients and non-ACO patients, respectively. In addition, we aimed to determine clinical characteristics of patients with wheezing compared to those without wheezing in the ACO and non-ACO groups. Methods: We analyzed the data from the Korean COPD Subgroup Study (KOCOSS), a multicenter prospective cohort. We classified patients into four groups according to whether they were ACO patients or had self-reported wheezing based on the patient's answer to the COPD-specific version of St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ-C): ACO with wheezing, ACO without wheezing, non-ACO with wheezing, and non-ACO without wheezing. Clinical characteristics and exacerbations during 1-year follow up were compared among four groups. Results: Wheezing was present in about 56% of patients in the ACO and non-ACO groups. In both groups, patients with wheezing exhibited more severe symptoms, worse lung function, and a higher risk of exacerbation than those without wheezing. There was no association between blood eosinophil count and wheezing in both the ACO and non-ACO groups. During 1-year follow-up, the ACO with wheezing group experienced exacerbations the most frequently, followed by the non-ACO with wheezing group. Moreover, wheezing was an independent predictor of the risk of exacerbation in patients with COPD, irrespective of both the ACO phenotype and the severity of airflow limitation. The exacerbation risk was higher in COPD patients who experienced wheezing more frequently. Conclusions: Wheezing, reflecting more prominent airflow limitation and predicting exacerbation development, may serve as a severe phenotype of COPD rather than being indicative of an ACO phenotype.
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.