ReviewMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)2026
Recognition and Management of Cognitive Impairment in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): Implications of Clinical Confidence.
Review in Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania), 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cognitive impairment is a serious comorbidity in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), consistently associated with adverse clinical outcomes, including impaired self-management, poor treatment adherence, reduced participation in pulmonary rehabilitation, and increased risk of mortality. Despite this, it remains inconsistently recognised and insufficiently addressed during routine COPD assessment. This narrative review synthesises current evidence on the recognition and management of cognitive impairment in COPD, with a particular focus on understanding why it continues to be under-recognised and inadequately managed in clinical practice. Across care settings, cognitive concerns are commonly identified informally, assessed selectively, or deferred altogether, even when clinicians acknowledge their relevance to respiratory assessment, treatment implementation, and patient engagement. This persistent evidence-practice gap suggests the influence of factors extending beyond disease- or patient-related explanations alone. Emerging evidence indicates that clinician-level determinants, particularly clinical confidence, play a central role in shaping cognitive care practices. Limited clinical confidence appears to mediate the translation of existing knowledge and competence into clinical action, influencing decisions to initiate assessment, communicate cognitive concerns, assume clinical ownership, and pursue follow-up or referral. These confidence-related barriers are further reinforced by educational limitations, time constraints, diagnostic ambiguity, particularly in the early cognitive impairment stage, and the absence of clear operational guidance within COPD-specific frameworks. Conceptualising cognitive care through the lens of clinical confidence provides a coherent explanation for the underrecognition of cognitive impairment in COPD. It also helps account for observed variability in clinical decision-making, highlighting clinical confidence as a modifiable intermediary between knowledge, competence, and practice and a potential target for strengthening integrated, patient-centred COPD care.
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.