Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39787174›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Clinical control in COPD and therapeutic implications: The EPOCONSUL audit.

Myriam Calle Rubio, Marc Miravitlles, Juan José Soler Cataluña, José Luis López-Campos, Bernardino Alcázar Navarrete, Manuel E Fuentes Ferrer, Juan Luis Rodríguez Hermosa

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Myriam Calle RubioPulmonology Department, Department of Medicine, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, School of Medicine, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos (IdISSC), CIBER de Enfermedades Respiratorias (CIBERES), Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3890-2742
Marc MiravitllesPulmonology Department, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Vall d'Hebron Institut de Recerca (VHIR), Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, CIBER de Enfermedades Respiratorias (CIBERES), Barcelona, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9850-9520
Juan José Soler CataluñaPulmonology Department, Hospital Arnau de Vilanova-Lliria, Valencia, Spain.
José Luis López-CamposRespiratory Disease Medical-Surgical Unit, Instituto de Biomedicina de Sevilla (IBiS), Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío/Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain.
Bernardino Alcázar NavarretePulmonology Department, Hospital Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2356-9366
Manuel E Fuentes FerrerUnidad de Investigación, Hospital Universitario Nuestra Señora de Candelaria, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain.
Juan Luis Rodríguez HermosaPulmonology Department, Department of Medicine, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, School of Medicine, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos (IdISSC), CIBER de Enfermedades Respiratorias (CIBERES), Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0552-2484

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate clinical control in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the consequences in terms of treatment decisions, and their potentially associated factors during follow-up of patients in real-life clinical practice.

methodsEPOCONSUL 2021 is a cross-sectional audit that evaluated the outpatient care provided to patients with a diagnosis of COPD in respiratory clinics in Spain and multivariable logistic regression models to assess the relationships between clinical control and clinical inertia.

results4225 patients from 45 hospitals in Spain were audited. Clinical control was analyzed in 1804 (42.7%) patients who met all the Spanish COPD Guidelines (GesEPOC) criteria. 49.1% of patients were classified as uncontrolled, and 42.2% of patients disagreed with the level of control determined by their doctor, which was reported as good during the visit. There was therapeutic inertia (TI), in other words not making any change or taking any action in the treatment of COPD, in 68.4% of uncontrolled patients and no action was taken during the visit for 9.1% of uncontrolled patients. Factors associated with TI in uncontrolled patients were disagreement with the degree of control reported by the doctor who performed the examination ☯physician classifies and reports disease as controlled versus uncontrolled, OR: 3.37 (2.33-4.88), p<0.001] and having a lower burden of associated comorbidities ☯Charlson comorbidity index ≥3 versus <3, OR 0.8 (0.1-3.0), p = 0.014]. The probability of disagreeing with the physician's classification of the degree of COPD control in uncontrolled patients was lower in patients with severe exacerbations ☯OR 0.3 (0.17-0.78), p = 0.009] and those with more exacerbations in the last year ☯OR 0.6 (0.4-0.9), p = 0.019].

conclusionsTherapeutic inertia exists in more than half of uncontrolled patients and is more likely when there is disagreement with the assessment of the physician responsible for the visit, who reported there being good disease control, a situation that was more likely in patients with less history of exacerbations.

Indexed as

Pulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveAgedAged, 80 and overAmbulatory CareCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSpain

Identifiers

PMID39787174
PMCPMC11717229

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.