Outpatient Management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Physician Adherence to the 2017 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease Guidelines and its Effect on Patient Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common and preventable illness that carries significant economic and social burden. The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) provides a comprehensive review of the available literature for the diagnosis and management of COPD. Despite being considered the standard of care, adherence to the GOLD guidelines varies among practitioners. In addition, there is yet to be a clear correlation between misalignment with GOLD practicing guidelines and patient outcomes. We studied the outpatient management of COPD, with special attention paid to whether or not adherence to the 2017 GOLD guidelines affected patient outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective electronic medical record review study observed the outpatient management of patients with COPD, aged 18 year or older, who presented to the suburban primary care office. Patients who received treatment according to the GOLD guidelines were compared with the patients who did not. Categorical data were analyzed as frequencies with percentages. Frequencies were compared using Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. A P value < 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance. RESULTS: A total of 158 patients were included in this study. Thirty-six percent of the patients were treated according to the GOLD guidelines. There was no significant difference in the mortality, exacerbations or hospitalizations between the patients who were treated according to the GOLD guidelines and those who were not. Comparing prescribing practices for those treated according to the GOLD guidelines versus those who were not, a significant difference in management occurred in regards to long acting beta agonist (P < 0.05) and inhaled corticosteroid therapy (P < 0.001). The differences in the use of other pharmacological and nonpharmacological agents were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to the 2017 GOLD guidelines had no statistically significant difference in patient outcomes. GOLD nonadherent patients received long-acting beta agonist and inhaled corticosteroid therapy at a significantly higher frequency compared to GOLD-adherent patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".