ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2025
Stability of blood eosinophils during acute exacerbations in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emerging role of SIRT1 in asthma and COPD from molecular mechanisms to translational therapy.iScience · 2026Review
- Baseline Blood Eosinophil Count and 28-Day in-Hospital Mortality in ICU-Admitted Patients with AECOPD: A Cohort Study with External Validation.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 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
Abstract
backgroundBlood eosinophils are recommended by GOLD as a biomarker for inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy in COPD, yet their stability during acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) remains uncertain.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 3,311 hospitalized AECOPD patients (2018-2023). Blood eosinophil distribution, longitudinal trends, and within-patient variability were assessed. Linear mixed-effects models estimated overall trajectories of ln(1 + EOS) over standardized hospital days (SHD). Variability was quantified by coefficient of variation (CV%), within-patient SD (wSD), and median absolute change between consecutive tests. Robustness of thresholds (100 and 300 cells/µL) was examined by crossing and reclassification rates, with simulations of 20-30% overall decline. Near-threshold "decision bands" were derived from the empirical median change (≈ 50 cells/µL).
resultsBlood eosinophils showed a right-skewed distribution with a median of 100 cells/µL (IQR 20-200). Mixed-effects models indicated only a mild overall increase (+ 2.16% per + 1 SD in SHD). In patients with repeated tests (n = 1,548), within-patient variability was substantial (median CV% 76.6%; wSD 57 cells/µL; median |Δ| 50 cells/µL). Threshold crossing and first-last reclassification were frequent (≥ 100: 45.7% and 32.9%; ≥300: 22.7% and 16.0%), and declined only slightly in simulated steroid-reduction scenarios. Approximately 13% of patients fluctuated between < 100 and ≥ 300 cells/µL during one admission.
conclusionEOS should be interpreted dynamically, with retesting or trend assessment recommended to guide clinical decisions during acute exacerbations.
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.