Observational studyJournal of Korean medical science2025
Development of a Scoring System to Predict Suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.
Observational study in Journal of Korean medical science, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPeak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) is a critical indicator for the successful use of dry powder inhalers (DPIs). However, resource constraints often limit the practicality of measuring PIFR prior to DPI prescription.
methodsA cross-sectional observational study was conducted across seven hospitals in Korea, including patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). To develop a scoring system to predict suboptimal PIFR without direct measurement, variables were selected through a literature review and logistic regression model, considering practicality in clinical settings.
resultsThe study involved 436 patients and was divided into training and test datasets with a 7:3 ratio. Age (≥ 80 years), weight (≤ 60 kg), modified Medical Research Council score (≥ 2), and post-bronchodilator forced vital capacity (≤ 80%pred) were selected to develop the scoring system. The developed scoring system, ranging from 0 to 4 points with a 2-points threshold for predicting suboptimal PIFR, demonstrated acceptable predictive ability for suboptimal PIFR in training (area under the receiver operating characteristic [AUROC], 0.724; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.660-0.789) and test datasets (AUROC, 0.686; 95% CI, 0.591-0.781).
conclusionOur developed scoring system demonstrated an acceptable predictive ability for suboptimal PIFR in COPD patients, utilizing variables that are easily applicable in clinical practice.
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.