ArticleChronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (Miami, Fla.)2025
Exploring Clinical Control of COPD: Insights From a Portuguese Outpatient Population.
Article in Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (Miami, Fla.), 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains a challenging condition to manage due to its variability in clinical presentation and progression. While disease control is a well-defined concept in asthma, its relevance in COPD is less clear. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of a COPD control framework, developed in Spain, in Portuguese outpatients by analyzing exacerbation rates among controlled and uncontrolled patients. Methods: This prospective, observational study enrolled 133 COPD outpatients, evaluated at baseline (V0), 6 months (V1), and one year (V2). Patients were classified as controlled or uncontrolled based on criteria assessing clinical stability and disease impact, incorporating dyspnea severity, rescue medication use, physical activity, sputum color, and recent exacerbation history. Patients classified as controlled and uncontrolled were compared regarding the occurrence of an exacerbation (hospitalization, emergency visit, or ambulatory exacerbation) during follow-up. Results: At baseline, 33.1% of patients were classified as controlled. This proportion increased to 46.2% at V1 but decreased to 31.6% at V2. Notably, only 12% remained consistently controlled throughout follow-up. There was a consistent trend of higher exacerbation rates among those previously uncontrolled. Only the difference in emergency visits at 12 months reached statistical significance (27.1% versus 7.8% in controlled patients, Conclusion: This study provides the first independent validation of COPD control criteria in a Portuguese cohort. Although the control framework proved feasible for clinical application, its predictive value for exacerbations was low in this severe-disease cohort. Future research should expand on these findings in diverse populations to optimize COPD management strategies.
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.