ArticleLancet regional health. Americas2023
Patterns of care in the management of high-risk COPD in the US (2011-2019): an observational study for the CONQUEST quality improvement program.
Article in Lancet regional health. Americas, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of budesonide/glycopyrronium/formoterol fumarate dihydrate on cardiopulmonary outcomes in COPD: rationale and design of the THARROS trial.ERJ open research · 2025Article
- Practical strategies for achieving system change in the US: lessons and insights from the CONQUEST quality improvement programme.Primary health care research & development · 2025Review
- Pragmatic Evaluation of an Improvement Program for People Living With Modifiable High-Risk COPD Versus Usual Care: Protocols for the Cluster Randomized PREVAIL Trial.Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (Miami, Fla.) · 2025Article
- Patterns of care in the management of high-risk COPD in Australia (2015-2019): an observational study for the CONQUEST quality improvement program.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025Article
- Structured Cardiac Assessment and Treatment Following Exacerbations of COPD (SCATECOPD): A Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- A Syndemic Model: COPD, Multimorbidity, and Poverty.Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (Miami, Fla.) · 2024Article
- Increased Herpes Zoster Risk With Inhaled Corticosteroid Use for Those With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (Miami, Fla.) · 2024Article
- Risk of Death and Cardiovascular Events Following an Exacerbation of COPD: The EXACOS-CV US Study.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In this study, we compare management of patients with high-risk chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the United States to national and international guidelines and quality standards, including the COllaboratioN on QUality improvement initiative for achieving Excellence in STandards of COPD care (CONQUEST). Methods: Patients were identified from the DARTNet Practice Performance Registry and categorized into three high-risk cohorts in each year from 2011 to 2019: newly diagnosed (≤12 months after diagnosis), already diagnosed, and patients with potential undiagnosed COPD. Patients were considered high-risk if they had a history of exacerbations or likely exacerbations (respiratory consult with prescribed medication). Descriptive statistics for 2019 are reported, along with annual trends. Findings: In 2019, 10% (n = 16,610/167,197) of patients met high-risk criteria. Evidence of spirometry for diagnosis was low; in 2019, 81% (n = 1228/1523) of patients newly diagnosed at high-risk had no record of spirometry/peak expiratory flow in the 12 months pre- or post-diagnosis and 43% (n = 651/1523) had no record of COPD symptom review. Among those newly and already diagnosed at high-risk, 52% (n = 4830/9350) had no evidence of COPD medication. Interpretation: Findings suggest inconsistent adherence to evidence-based guidelines, and opportunities to improve identification, documentation of services, assessment, therapeutic intervention, and follow-up of patients with COPD. Funding: This study was conducted by the Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute (OPRI) Pte Ltd and was partially funded by Optimum Patient Care Global and AstraZeneca Ltd. No funding was received by the Observational & Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd (OPRI) for its contribution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.