ReviewOpen respiratory archives
[Telephone Support for Copd Patients During COVID-19].
Review in Open respiratory archives. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Impact of Different Mobile Health Technologies on Physical Activity of COPD Patients: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical systems · 2025Pooled it
- [Efficacy of tele-rehabilitation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review].Anales del sistema sanitario de Navarra · 2022Pooled it
- Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease: Treatment Guidelines and Recommendations for Referral and Multidisciplinary Continuity of Care.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Experience on the Management of Patients with Asthma or Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease During the COVID-19 Pandemic: the NEUMOBIAL Study.Advances in therapy · 2022Article
- Decrease in Readmissions after Hospitalisation for COPD Exacerbation through a Home Care Model.Open respiratory archivesArticle
- Active home surveillance system (COD19) in managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: lessons and future perspectives from the COVID-19 pandemic experience.Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseaseArticle
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
The state of alarm declared by the Spanish government as the main measure for preventing contagion has involved a change in the clinical management of chronic patients. Although new communication technologies offer us many ways to establish direct but remote contact, the peculiarities of the COPD patient often mean that their healthcare is reduced to telephone calls. The challenge of caring for COPD patients is made even more complex when it has to be delivered over the phone. The interview must be conducted without examining the patient, without performing additional tests, and without checking their inhalation technique. Therefore, healthcare providers who conduct these interviews must be trained to perform them properly in order to make the right decisions. This document is aimed at healthcare professionals who need to provide some form of telephone care to COPD patients during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and is based on the authors' experience in telephone interviews conducted during this period. It summarizes essential aspects of how this interview should be approached, how to conduct it, what factors should be kept in mind, how to organize the interview, and how to keep patients informed. It is very likely that from now on this type of interview will be common practice in the care of our patients, so we need to learn how to structure a new model of healthcare for many of the clinical visits that have until now been conducted face-to-face.
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.