ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Dynamic performance and scenario-based screening strategy of six COPD questionnaires: a cross-sectional study with prevalence-driven robustness validation.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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.
- Updates in COPD Management: From Inflammatory Pathways to Targeted Therapies.European journal of clinical investigation · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) imposes a high global burden. Spirometry is the diagnostic gold standard but has accessibility barriers. Screening questionnaires provide a feasible alternative. Objectives: To compare the diagnostic performance and robustness of six COPD screening questionnaires (LFQ: Lung Function Questionnaire; IPAG: International Primary Care Airways Group Questionnaire; Modified-IPAG; COPD-PS: COPD Population Screener Questionnaire; COPD-SQ: COPD Screening Questionnaire; SCSQ: The Salzburg COPD Screening Questionnaire) within a single cohort population, thereby providing evidence to support targeted screening for COPD. Methods: This cross-sectional study enrolled adults ≥40 years without prior asthma or non-COPD chronic lung diseases. Participants completed six screening questionnaires and spirometry. COPD was confirmed by pulmonologists. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed for each questionnaire; sensitivity, specificity, accuracy (ACC), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated. Dynamic variations in screening performance were simulated under different disease prevalence scenarios. Results: Modified-IPAG and LFQ showed highest sensitivity (94.78%/91.79%) and NPV (98.11%/97.45%); COPD-PS and COPD-SQ had highest specificity (79.32%/87.05%) and PPV (43.50%/43.87%). AUC ranged 0.681 (SCSQ)-0.796 (COPD-PS). Dynamic simulations revealed COPD-PS maintained stable ACC across prevalence (ΔACC = 0.06; β = -0.018; Conclusion: A "Scenario-Priority" strategy is proposed: For rule-out screening, use high-sensitivity tools (Modified-IPAG/LFQ); for high-risk identification, prioritize robust COPD-PS; in low-prevalence regions (<30%), use high-specificity SQ. This approach transcends the conventional "tool-first" static framework, delivering evidence-based support for precision COPD screening implementation.
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.