ArticleERJ open research2025
COPD exacerbation purulence status and its association with pulmonary embolism: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Article in ERJ open 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.
- Pulmonary Thromboembolism in Hospitalized Patients with Acute Exacerbation of COPD: Frequency, Predictors, and D-Dimer Performance.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Diagnosing pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients with acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD) is challenging. Finding predictors of PE could help improve diagnostic management of patients with AECOPD. The aim was to evaluate the association between AECOPD purulence status and the presence of PE. Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted. Medline, Embase and CENTRAL were searched from inception to April 2024 for randomised trials, cohort or cross-sectional studies reporting on the prevalence of PE according to AECOPD purulence status. Relative risks with 95% confidence intervals of PE according to AECOPD purulence status and pooled proportions of PE with their 95% confidence intervals were calculated according to AECOPD purulence status. Results: From 7059 citations identified, 14 studies (5056 participants) were included. The prevalence of PE varied between 0.4% and 33.2% across studies. The relative risk of PE was not statistically significantly lower in patients with purulent AECOPD compared to patients with nonpurulent/unknown aetiology AECOPD (relative risk 0.64, 95% CI 0.26-1.55; I Conclusion: The relative risk of PE was lower, but not statistically significant, in patients with purulent AECOPD compared to patients with nonpurulent/unknown aetiology AECOPD. Further studies are needed to confirm the association between PE and AECOPD purulence status and to assess its potential role in predicting PE.
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.