Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In this issue of the Canadian Respiratory Journal , Blais et al (pages 27 to 32) publish an interesting study of the use of inhaled steroids in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Using the Quebec provincial database from the years 1990 to 1996, they found that these medications were given to more and more patients during the period of the study, and that the patients tended to be sicker than those who were not given inhaled steroids: they saw more physicians, including specialists; took more bronchodilators; and had more exacerbations. This is the result that I would have predicted if asked and is therefore not surprising. What surprised me is the fact that patients did not continue to use inhaled steroids once they had been started on them; of those given these drugs for the first time, one‐half stopped them after approximately 18 months, and after five years, approximately only 20% were still taking them. Further, as the number of patients given inhaled steroids increased, persistence decreased. What are we to make of this? One could argue that the dates covered by the study of Blais et al preceded the clinical trials (1) showing that inhaled steroids reduced exacerbations in COPD and that they were not prescribed with the conviction that present‐day physicians would employ. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that COPD patients were given these medications as a temporary expedient; presumably, most prescriptions for inhaled steroids were for chronic maintenance therapy. It is therefore unlikely that the prescribing physicians told COPD patients to take the drugs until they felt better and then discontinue them. It is also possible that inhaled steroids were unique respiratory drugs in that they were expensive and that this impacted persistence negatively. Although these patients had provincial drug insurance coverage, it was probably on a reimbursement basis, as in Manitoba, and inhaled steroids presented a cash flow problem.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».