ArticleScientific reports2025
Mortality and exacerbation risk according to GOLD and STAR severity stages of COPD: a 5-year multicenter prospective cohort study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Estimation of mortality hazard ratios by COPD grade using a systematic review and network meta-analysis: deriving grade-, sex-, and age-specific mortality for a German COPD decision model.Scientific reports · 2026Pooled it
- Updates in COPD Management: From Inflammatory Pathways to Targeted Therapies.European journal of clinical investigation · 2026Review
- Multi-stakeholder perspectives of palliative care needs in advanced COPD: a qualitative study.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- Review
- The Disproportionate Burden of Cardiovascular Disease in Mild-to-Moderate COPD.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2026Article
- The Multidimensional Burden of COPD in China: A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison with Other Prevalent Non-Communicable Diseases.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) classification, based on percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (ppFEV1), has been widely adopted for assessment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) severity. However, the STaging of Airflow obstruction by Ratio (STAR) system, based on the ratio of FEV1 to forced vital capacity, was recently proposed as an alternative classification. This study aimed to compare the prognostic performance of the GOLD and STAR classifications for prediction of mortality and exacerbation risk in individuals with COPD. This 5-year prospective, multicenter cohort study enrolled 370 individuals with COPD at 29 medical centers. All-cause mortality risk across GOLD and STAR stages was evaluated with Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models. The risk of moderate to severe COPD exacerbations across GOLD and STAR stages was examined with cumulative incidence function (CIF) curves and Fine and Gray models. Both classification systems showed a significant association with mortality and exacerbation risk (P < 0.01 for trend). The GOLD classification provided a better separation of Kaplan-Meier and CIF curves for advanced stages, whereas the STAR classification showed a clearer distinction between stages I and II. These associations remained consistent after multivariable adjustments. The GOLD classification was superior for prediction of prognosis in advanced COPD, whereas the STAR classification provided better differentiation in early-stage disease. These findings highlight the complementary roles of the GOLD and STAR classifications in assessment of COPD severity.
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.