ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2025
Comparison of stability of the GOLD and STAR lung function classification for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 2025. 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.
- The Glymphatic System and Diaphragmatic Dysfunction in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Chronic Heart Failure: The Importance of Inspiratory Rehabilitation Training.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) typically relies on spirometric measurements. The Staging of Airflow Obstruction by Ratio (STAR) classification, a newly proposed system for grading the severity of pulmonary function, has been suggested as a potentially better predictor of outcomes than other classifications. However, the long-term stability of the STAR classification, especially in comparison to the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) classification, remains unclear.
methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, we analysed data from 622 patients with COPD, enrolled in a pay-for-performance programme at two university hospitals in Taiwan. Patients were classified according to the GOLD and STAR classifications, based on post-bronchodilator spirometry results. The study assessed the agreement between these classifications and the stability of each over a 3-year period, categorising patients into four patterns: no change (stable stage throughout), progression (persistent shift to severe stage), instability (fluctuating between higher and lower stages) and reversal (sustained improvement to a less severe stage).
resultsThe STAR classification system identified a higher proportion of patients with instability or reversal patterns (42.1%) compared with the GOLD classification (31.0%). While fair coherence was noted between the two classifications over 3 years, the STAR classification demonstrated greater variability. Compared with the GOLD classification, the STAR classification exhibited a higher proportion of instability or reversal patterns in stage 2 but a lower proportion of these patterns in stage 4.
conclusionCompared with the GOLD classification, the STAR classification demonstrated higher instability and reversal patterns, suggesting the need for careful consideration for its use in long-term COPD management. Further research is required to explore the clinical implications of these findings and to refine the use of these classifications.
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.