ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Western Pacific2025
Patterns of care in the management of high-risk COPD in Australia (2015-2019): an observational study for the CONQUEST quality improvement program.
Article in The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
29 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: We compared the management of patients with 'high-risk' COPD in Australia to national/international guidelines and quality standards, including the COllaboratioN on QUality improvement initiative for achieving Excellence in STandards of COPD care (CONQUEST). Methods: Eligible patients in the Optimum Patient Care Research Database Australia were categorized as newly diagnosed (≤12 months after diagnosis), already diagnosed, or patients with potential undiagnosed COPD, in each year from 2015 to 2019. 'High-risk' patients had ≥2 COPD exacerbations/exacerbation-like events in the last 24 months. Descriptive statistics for 2019 are reported, along with annual trends. Findings: In 2019, 11.3% (2608/22,985) of eligible patients met high-risk criteria. Most newly diagnosed high-risk COPD patients (71.3%) had no recorded lung function testing within 12 months of diagnosis. 63.6% of new COPD diagnoses had no evidence of supporting spirometry or chest CT, with the remainder having recorded chest CT only. 44.3% of already diagnosed high-risk patients had no recorded inhaled maintenance therapy, although this was recorded for 11.2% of potential undiagnosed patients. Smoking cessation support and pulmonary rehabilitation were recorded for <40% and ≤2% of diagnosed COPD patients respectively. Interpretation: There is substantial opportunity to improve diagnosis, assessment and treatment of patients with COPD in Australia by identifying, reviewing and managing high-risk patients in accordance with evidence-based guidelines and CONQUEST standards. Funding: This study was conducted by Optimum Patient Care Australia Pty Ltd (OPCA) and was partially funded by OPCA and AstraZeneca Pty 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.