Observational studyJournal of Korean medical science2025
Risk Factors of FEV₁/FVC Decline in COPD Patients.
Observational study in Journal of Korean medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of the health-related outcomes for traditional cigarettes, e-cigarettes, heat-not-burn cigarettes and snus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- Association of body mass index with mortality in COPD through exacerbations and cardiovascular events.BMJ open respiratory research · 2026Observational
- Prognostic value of long-term trajectory linearity in rapid lung function decline.ERJ open research · 2026Article
- Clinical significance of LncRNA NORAD and its potential mechanism in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2026Article
- Maximal Forced Inspiratory Flow Dynamics and Acute Exacerbation in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients with Exacerbation History.Tuberculosis and respiratory diseases · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFactors influencing the decline in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁)/forced vital capacity (FVC) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) progression remain uncertain. We aimed to identify risk factors associated with rapid FEV₁/FVC decline in patients with COPD.
methodsThis multi-center observational study was conducted from January 2012 to December 2022. Eligible patients were monitored with symptoms, spirometric tests, and treatment patterns over 3 years. Rapid FEV₁/FVC decliners were defined as the quartile of patients exhibiting the highest annualized percentage decline in FEV₁/FVC.
resultsAmong 1,725 patients, 435 exhibited rapid FEV₁/FVC decline, with an annual change of -2.5%p (interquartile range, -3.5 to -2.0). Rapid FEV₁/FVC decliners exhibited lower body mass index (BMI), higher smoking rates, elevated post-bronchodilator (BD) FEV₁, higher post-BD FEV₁/FVC, and a lower prevalence of Staging of Airflow Obstruction by Ratio (STAR) stage IV. Rapid FEV₁/FVC decline was not linked to the annual exacerbation rate, but there was an association with symptom deterioration and FEV₁ decline. In multivariable analyses, low BMI, current smoking, increased modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea score, low post-BD FEV₁, low STAR stage, high forced mid-expiratory flow (FEF
conclusionWe identified the risk factors for rapid FEV₁/FVC decline, including BMI, smoking, symptoms deterioration, FEV₁ decline, and adherence to standard inhaler treatment. Our findings underscore the potential benefits of maintaining consistent use of long-acting beta-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist even in the presence of worsening symptoms, in attenuating FEV₁/FVC decline.
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.