ArticleMedicine2026
Is it essential for the combination of GOLD C and D groups in COPD patients: A multicenter retrospective study?
Article in Medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The global initiative for chronic obstructive lung disease (GOLD) 2023 combined the C and D groups into the E group. This study aimed to explore the necessity of combining the GOLD C and D groups based on prognosis and inhaled treatment response in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study retrospectively analyzed data from the Real-world Diapnosis and Treatment of COPD cohort study from January 2017 to June 2022. The baseline demographic and clinical data were organized. According to the GOLD 2017, patients were classified into 4 groups (A, B, C, and D). At follow-up, the number of moderate-to-severe exacerbations in 1 year and all-cause mortality in 3 years were recorded. A total of 4970 COPD patients were included in this study, with a mean age of 62.4 ± 8.4 years; 86.9% were male, and 77.6% were smokers. The GOLD C group included 156 (3.1%) patients. Logistic regression with stratified adjustment showed that patients in the GOLD A and B groups had the lowest risk of future exacerbation (A group: odds ratio [OR] = 0.369, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.249-0.546; B group: OR = 0.447, 95% CI = 0.339-0.671), frequent exacerbation (A group: OR = 0.291, 95% CI = 0.169-0.503; B group: OR = 0.458, 95% CI = 0.296-0.709), and hospitalization (A group: OR = 0.349, 95% CI = 0.219-0.556; B group: OR = 0.394, 95% CI = 0.267-0.582), whereas patients in the GOLD D group had similar risk values to patients in the GOLD C group. Stratified logistic regression also showed that different inhaled treatments had no impact on the risk of future exacerbation, frequent exacerbation, and hospitalization in the GOLD C group, while in GOLD D group, long-acting β-2-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LABA/LAMA) or LABA/LAMA/inhaled corticosteroids could decrease the risk of future any exacerbation and frequent exacerbation but the risk of hospitalization was similar among different inhaled treatment groups. The GOLD C group, as the smallest group, showed a similar prognosis to the GOLD D group. The effect of different inhaled treatments was almost the same in the GOLD C group, while LABA/LAMA and LABA/LAMA/inhaled corticosteroids were superior for patients in the GOLD D group.
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.