ArticleInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2026
Insights into the Follow-Up of Patients with COPD in Daily Practice: Results from a Spanish Delphi Consensus ("The SEGUIPOC Study").
Article 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To develop a consensus document on how to follow-up patients with COPD in clinical practice in Spain. Methods: A qualitative, three-round Delphi survey was conducted in the framework of Spanish pneumologists attending COPD patients in routine daily practice. Participants completed a 35-item questionnaire on how to follow-up COPD patients, according to four sections: 1) assessment of the patient's clinical conditions, 2) therapeutical interventions, 3) frequency of follow-up visits, and 4) healthcare pathways. Consensus was defined if more than 70% of participants agree. Results: A total of 155 specialists in respiratory medicine (53% men; mean age 47 years) participated in the study (69% with more than 10 years of professional practice). More than 80% of participants agreed on the use of clinical practice guidelines but 81.9% considered that recommendations on follow-up should be more explicit. Assessment of lung function (FEV1), dyspnea, and exacerbations were the clinical variables that reached a higher level of consensus. Dyspnea values were reported as the main indicator to assess increased bronchodilation, and exacerbations were the most important to assess the use of inhaled corticosteroids. Follow-up of low-risk patients should be performed in the primary care setting, and patients should be visited every 12 months, whereas high‑risk patients should be monitored by pneumologists and including nursing visits. Conclusion: The participants agree that the guidelines should include more specific indications to define the follow-up of the COPD patient, and there is lack of evidence in many aspects. There is consensus on the importance of care to coordinate with nursing and primary care, but the protocols to follow and the working tasks for each healthcare setting remain unclear.
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.