ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2025
Screening of COPD patients using the COPD diagnostic questionnaire and a portable spirometer in primary healthcare institutions: a cross-sectional, diagnostic study.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPortable spirometers and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) diagnostic questionnaires are commonly used for screening patients with COPD in primary healthcare institutions, but their accuracy is often inadequate. This study aimed to explore the accuracy of combining these two tools in screening for COPD.
methodsParticipants aged ≥ 40 years were recruited from primary healthcare institutions between July 2022 and July 2023. All participants completed COPD diagnostic questionnaires (CDQs) and pulmonary function tests including pre and post bronchodilator maneuvers using a portable spirometer at primary healthcare institutions and a conventional spirometer at a tertiary hospital. COPD was diagnosed based on the forced expiratory volume/forced vital capacity (FEV
resultsOf the 2,120 participants, 264 were newly diagnosed with COPD. Among the non-COPD population, 264 participants were matched by age, sex, and BMI to form the non-COPD group. The sensitivity and specificity of the combination of the portable spirometer and CDQ in diagnosing COPD were 96.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.934-0.983) and 79.9% (95% CI: 0.745-0.845), respectively, significantly higher than those with the use of either method alone (p < 0.05). The area under the ROC curve for the combined diagnosis of COPD was 0.994 (95% CI: 0.983-0.999), with a Jordan index of 0.765.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that combining the portable spirometer with the CDQ enhances COPD detection and is a valuable approach for implementation in primary healthcare institutions.
trial registrationThis study has been registered in national medical research registration and filing information system of China, www.medicalresearch.org.cn , Trail registration number: MR-11-23-020214.
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.