A Systematic Literature Review of the Humanistic Burden of COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, causing substantial economic and social burden. OBJECTIVE: This review assessed the patient-reported humanistic burden associated with moderate to very severe COPD, specifically the impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), symptoms, limitations in daily life, and emotional implications, through the use of HRQoL instruments. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to retrieve relevant clinical data from published literature using a representative sample of countries where healthcare systems provide wide availability of COPD medications and/or universal coverage includes respiratory medicines (Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK, and the USA). The primary inclusion criteria were patients with moderate to very severe COPD. HRQoL was quantified with non-disease-specific and disease-specific questionnaires. RESULTS: In total, 82 studies from 95 publications presented HRQoL data from patients with moderate to very severe COPD. Patient-reported HRQoL declined with worsening airflow limitation, advancing GOLD group, and increasing exacerbation frequency. Both increasing frequency of hospitalization for COPD exacerbations and recurrent hospitalization adversely impacted HRQoL. Comorbidity incidence was higher in patients with increased airflow limitation. It was associated with a further decline in HRQoL and increased depression and anxiety, particularly as disease-associated pain worsened. Physical activity improved HRQoL over time. CONCLUSION: This review highlighted the impact of exacerbations and associated hospitalizations on the humanistic burden of COPD. These findings underline the importance of managing COPD actively, including prompt and appropriate use of pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies that can improve symptoms and reduce the risk of exacerbations, thereby lessening the humanistic burden. Future reviews could consider a broader range of countries and publications to further assess the humanistic impact of COPD in low- and middle-income economies.
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 | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".