MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1909024616 · doi:10.1186/s13104-015-1427-y

Clinical, humanistic, and economic burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in Canada: a systematic review

2015· review· en· W1909024616 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Research Notes · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityGlaxoSmithKline (Canada)
FundersGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsMedicineCOPDSystematic reviewEmergency departmentObservational studyMEDLINECochrane LibraryHealth careRandomized controlled trialQuality of life (healthcare)Family medicineEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic, irreversible disease and a leading cause of worldwide morbidity and mortality. In Canada, COPD is the fourth leading cause of death. This systematic review was undertaken to update healthcare professionals and decision makers regarding the recent clinical, humanistic and economic burden evidence in Canada. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases to identify original research published January 2000 through December 2012 on the burden of COPD in Canada. Each search was conducted using controlled vocabulary and key words, with "COPD" as the main search concept and limited to Canadian studies, written in English and involving human subjects. Selected studies included randomized controlled trials, observational studies and systematic reviews/meta-analyses that reported healthcare resource utilization, quality of life and/or healthcare costs. RESULTS: Of the 972 articles identified through the literature searches, 70 studies were included in this review. These studies were determined to have an overall good quality based on the quality assessment. COPD patients were found to average 0-4 annual emergency department visits, 0.3-1.5 annual hospital visits, and 0.7-5 annual physician visits. Self-care management was found to lessen the overall risk of emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalization and unscheduled physician visits. Additionally, integrated care decreased the mean number of hospitalizations and telephone support reduced the number of annual physician visits. Overall, 60-68 % of COPD patients were found to be inactive and 60-72 % reported activity restriction. Pain was found to negatively correlate with physical activity while breathing difficulties resulted in an inability to leave home and reduced the ability to handle activities of daily living. Evidence indicated that treating COPD improved patients' overall quality of life. The average total cost per patient ranged between CAN $2444-4391 from a patient perspective to CAN $3910-6693 from a societal perspective. Furthermore, evidence indicated that COPD exacerbations lead to higher costs. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical, humanistic and economic burden of COPD in Canada is substantial. Use of self-care management programs, telephone support, and integrated care may reduce the overall burden to Canadian patients and society.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.185
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it