ArticleBMJ open2024
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation purulence status and its association with pulmonary embolism: protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. 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.
- COPD exacerbation purulence status and its association with pulmonary embolism: a systematic review with meta-analysis.ERJ open research · 2025Article
- Construction and verification of risk prediction model of pulmonary embolism in ICU patients with COPD in acute exacerbation based on age, SAPSII score, braking state, and mechanical ventilation.Frontiers in medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAcute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) increases the risk of pulmonary embolism (PE). AECOPD and PE have similar symptoms which results in a high proportion of patients with AECOPD undergoing imaging to rule out PE. Finding predictors and explanatory factors of PE in AECOPD, such as purulence status, could help reduce the need for imaging. This systematic review with meta-analysis aims to evaluate if there is an association between purulence status in AECOPD and PE diagnosis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL will be searched from database inception to April 2024. Randomised trials, cohort studies and cross-sectional studies on the prevalence of PE in patients with AECOPD will be included if the prevalence of PE based on the AECOPD purulence status is available. There will be no restriction on language. The primary outcome will be PE at the initial assessment and secondary outcomes will be all venous thromboembolism (deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and PE) and DVT, respectively, diagnosed at the initial assessment. Relative risks with their 95% CI will be calculated by using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effect model to compare the association between the risk of PE and the AECOPD purulence status (purulent vs non-purulent/unknown). Subgroup analyses will be performed based on the type of study, systematic search of PE versus no systematic search of PE and localisation of PE. Risk of bias will be evaluated by the ROBINS-E tool, publication bias will be evaluated with the funnel plot. The manuscript will be drafted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study does not require ethics approval. This work will be submitted for presentation at an international conference and for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023459429.
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.