ArticleMultidisciplinary respiratory medicine2024
An Italian Delphi Consensus on the Triple inhalation Therapy in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.
Article in Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Strategies for therapeutic optimization and proactive care in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): an Italian expert opinion.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) lacks standardization due to the diverse clinical presentation, comorbidities, and limited acceptance of recommended approaches by physicians. To address this, a multicenter study was conducted among Italian respiratory physicians to assess consensus on COPD management and pharmacological treatment.
methodsThe study employed the Delphi process using the Estimate-Talk-Estimate method, involving a scientific board and expert panel. During a 6-month period, the scientific board conducted the first Delphi round and identified 11 broad areas of COPD management to be evaluated while the second Delphi round translated all 11 items into statements. The statements were subsequently presented to the expert panel for independent rating on a nine-point scale. Consensus was considered achieved if the median score was 7 or higher. Consistently high levels of consensus were observed in the first rating, allowing the scientific board to finalize the statements without requiring further rounds.
resultsTopics generating substantial discussion included the pre-COPD phase, patient-reported outcomes, direct escalation from a single bronchodilator to triple therapy, and the role of adverse events, particularly pneumonia, in guiding triple therapy prescriptions. Notably, these topics exhibited higher standard deviations, indicating greater variation in expert opinions.
conclusionsThe study emphasized the significance that Italian pulmonologists attribute to managing mortality, tailoring treatments, and addressing cardiovascular comorbidities in COPD patients. While unanimous consensus was not achieved for all statements, the results provide valuable insights to inform clinical decision-making among physicians and contribute to a better understanding of COPD management practices in Italy.
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.