ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026
A Brief History of COPD: As Told by Some of Its Senior Scientists and Clinicians.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Smoker's Lungs: Quo Vadis? Exploring the Shared and Individual Smoking-Related Molecular Pathways of Emphysema, Carcinoma, and Fibrosis - An Illustrative Review.Thoracic cancer · 2026Review
- Sarcopenia and Frailty in COPD: Mechanisms, Relationship with Malnutrition and Potential Therapeutic Interventions.Nutrients · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema, is highly prevalent worldwide and is the third leading cause of death. While some aspects of the disease were known since the Enlightenment, Laennec's work in the 19th century began the process of our current understanding of this disease. In this narrative review, 13 clinicians and scientists with over three centuries of cumulative experience treating and studying COPD give their perspectives on the science underpinning our modern concept of this disease and its management. These include (1) the challenges of coming up with a name for what is a complex syndrome; (2) the evolution of our thinking on the natural history of the disease; (3) the importance of particulate matter inhalation in its pathogenesis; (4) the often-overlooked but important-and often treatable-systemic effects of the disease that contribute to its morbidity and mortality; (5) the changes in our perspective of not just addressing pathologic or physiologic abnormalities but also measuring outcomes, such as breathlessness or health-related quality of life, that are of considerable importance to the patient; (6) the role of pharmacologic therapy in not only providing symptomatic relief by increasing airway caliber but also in disease modification, especially by reducing exacerbation frequency; (7) lung hyperinflation as an essential feature of COPD pathophysiology, driving symptom burden, exercise limitation, and mortality risk; (8) long-term oxygen therapy, despite being demonstrated to prolong survival in a defined set of hypoxemic patients with COPD, still having unanswered questions regarding its application and delivery; and (9) pulmonary rehabilitation, a major component of the non-pharmacologic treatment of COPD patients and prominently situated in clinical guidelines for this disease. While this, by necessity, must be a brief review of a very complex disease, the perspectives of these esteemed clinicians and scientists should be of use to other clinicians in understanding and managing this disease.
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.