MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081714851 · doi:10.1001/jama.290.17.2301

Contemporary Management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

2003· review· en· W2081714851 on OpenAlexafffund
Don D. Sin, Finlay A. McAlister, S. F. Paul Man, N. R. Anthonisen

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaInstitute of Health EconomicsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFondation pour la Recherche Médicale
KeywordsMedicineCOPDPulmonary rehabilitationExacerbationRandomized controlled trialContext (archaeology)Intensive care medicineQuality of life (healthcare)Psychological interventionMEDLINEPlaceboPhysical therapyClinical trialMeta-analysisSystematic reviewInternal medicineAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: The care of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has changed radically over the past 2 decades, and novel therapies can not only improve the health status of patients with COPD but also modify its natural course. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the impact of long-acting bronchodilators, inhaled corticosteroids, nocturnal noninvasive mechanical ventilation, pulmonary rehabilitation, domiciliary oxygen therapy, and disease management programs on clinical outcomes in patients with COPD. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and Cochrane databases were searched to identify all randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews from 1980 to May 2002 evaluating interventions in patients with COPD. We also hand searched bibliographies of relevant articles and contacted experts in the field. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: We included randomized controlled trials that had follow-up of at least 3 months and contained data on at least 1 of these clinical outcomes: health-related quality of life, exacerbations associated with COPD, or death. For pulmonary rehabilitation, we included studies that had a follow-up of at least 6 weeks. Using standard meta-analytic techniques, the effects of interventions were compared with placebo or with usual care. In secondary analyses, the effects of interventions were compared against each other, where possible. DATA SYNTHESIS: Long-acting beta2-agonists and anticholinergics (tiotropium) reduced exacerbation rates by approximately 20% to 25% (relative risk [RR] for long-acting beta2-agonists, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.90; RR for tiotropium, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.89) in patients with moderate to severe COPD. Inhaled corticosteroids also reduced exacerbation rates by a similar amount (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.72-0.80). The beneficial effects were most pronounced in trials enrolling patients with FEV1 between 1 L and 2 L. Combining a long-acting beta2-agonist with an inhaled corticosteroid resulted in an approximate 30% (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.62-0.78) reduction in exacerbations. Pulmonary rehabilitation improved the health status of patients with moderate to severe disease, but no material effect was observed on long-term survival or hospitalization rates. Domiciliary oxygen therapy improved survival by approximately 40% in patients with PaO2 lower than 60 mm Hg, but not in those without hypoxia at rest. The data on disease management programs were heterogeneous, but overall no effect was observed on survival or risk of hospitalization. Noninvasive mechanical ventilation was not associated with improved outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: A significant body of evidence supports the use of long-acting bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids in reducing exacerbations in patients with moderate to severe COPD. Domiciliary oxygen therapy is the only intervention that has been demonstrated to prolong survival, but only in patients with resting hypoxia.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations405
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207