Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41257187›Full record

ArticleERJ open research2025

Guideline-concordant inhaled medication use in COPD: a systematic review of definitions used in administrative health data.

Yiwei Yin, Valerie Mok, Jaden Jeong, Emily Brigham, Mary A De Vera, Mohsen Sadatsafavi, Kevin I Duan, Kate M Johnson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Yiwei YinCollaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Valerie MokFaculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Jaden JeongCollaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Emily BrighamDivision of Respiratory Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Mary A De VeraCollaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Mohsen SadatsafaviCollaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0419-7862
Kevin I DuanDivision of Respiratory Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Kate M JohnsonCollaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7406-2448

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Assessments of guideline-discordant use of maintenance inhaled therapies for COPD in administrative health data are common but restricted by lack of patient characteristics. We systematically reviewed definitions of guideline-concordant and guideline-discordant maintenance inhaled medication use applied to administrative health data. Methods: We searched MEDLINE and Embase from January 2000 to September 2024 for studies that 1) used administrative health data to identify adults with COPD who were prescribed long-acting bronchodilators (LABDs) or inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for outpatient treatment; 2) defined maintenance inhaled medication use as guideline-concordant and/or guideline-discordant at the patient level. We developed standardised definitions for claims data aligned with management recommendations and conducted a meta-analysis to assess the proportion of patients with guideline-concordant and guideline-discordant medication use. Results: We screened 4578 records and included 20 studies. There were 22 unique definitions of guideline-concordance or discordance, based on the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) recommendations. The most common measurements were 1) guideline-discordant ICS use (n=10); 2) guideline-concordant LABDs use (n=8); and 3) guideline-concordant ICS use, focusing on ICS alone (n=4) regardless of LABDs or with LABDs (n=6). Given that acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) was the most commonly used criterion and aligned with recommendations, we developed an AECOPD risk-based definition. Pooled analysis showed 50% guideline-concordant LABDs use and 45% guideline-discordant ICS use across populations. Conclusions: Definitions of guideline-concordant LABDs use and guideline-discordant ICS use in administrative health data are largely congruent with GOLD. AECOPD risk-based definitions provide a generalisable approach for assessing guideline-concordance in administrative data.

Identifiers

PMID41257187
PMCPMC12621124

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.