SynthesisInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2026
The Burden of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in the US: A Systematic Review of Nationally Representative Health Surveys.
Synthesis in International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: COPD prevalence estimates from US national surveys vary widely, likely reflecting differences in diagnostic criteria and measurement approaches. This review aimed to systematically characterize variability in COPD prevalence estimates across nationally representative US surveys, with emphasis on differences by diagnostic criteria and across key population subgroups. Methods: We searched OVID Medline, OVID Embase and PubMed from inception through October 7th, 2025, for observational studies reporting COPD prevalence in the US general population using nationally representative survey data. Estimates were summarized by diagnostic criteria (spirometry, self-reported) and key subgroups (smoking status, sex and race/ethnicity). Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Results: We included 22 studies from four surveys: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES); The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS); The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS); and The Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH). RoB scores ranged between 7 and 8 out of a total of 11 points. Six studies used spirometry and 16 used self-reported diagnosis. Spirometry estimates were consistently higher (12.5-13.8%) than self-reported estimates (3.0-7.2%), with NHIS (1997-2020) showing the highest self-reported estimates. When using spirometry, prevalence was highest in males (17.9%-23.7%), but when using self-reported data, prevalence was highest in females (3.0%-8.5%). Current smokers had the highest prevalence in both spirometry (21.2%-25.7%) and self-report (6.3%-16.7%). Prevalence was highest among Non-Hispanic Whites using spirometry (13.8%-17.5%), but it was highest among "Other" when using self-report (1.9%-11.2%). Among the studies that reported prevalence by COPD severity level, most were classified as mild to moderate obstruction. Conclusion: Consistent assessment methods across surveys are necessary to better understand and address the real burden of COPD across the diverse US population, supporting more effective surveillance while informing public health policy and prevention efforts.
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.