↓ Skip to main content

Characterizing undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Respiratory Research, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
26 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Characterizing undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Respiratory Research, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12931-018-0731-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kate M. Johnson, Stirling Bryan, Shahzad Ghanbarian, Don D. Sin, Mohsen Sadatsafavi

Abstract

A significant proportion of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remain undiagnosed. Characterizing these patients can increase our understanding of the 'hidden' burden of COPD and the effectiveness of case detection interventions. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare patient and disease factors between patients with undiagnosed persistent airflow limitation and those with diagnosed COPD. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for observational studies of adult patients meeting accepted spirometric definitions of COPD. We extracted and pooled summary data on the proportion or mean of each risk factor among diagnosed and undiagnosed patients (unadjusted analysis), and coefficients for the adjusted association between risk factors and diagnosis status (adjusted analysis). Two thousand eighty-three records were identified through database searching and 16 articles were used in the meta-analyses. Diagnosed patients were less likely to have mild (v. moderate to very severe) COPD (odds ratio [OR] 0.30, 95%CI 0.24-0.37, 6 studies) in unadjusted analysis. This association remained significant but its strength was attenuated in the adjusted analysis (OR 0.72, 95%CI 0.58-0.89, 2 studies). Diagnosed patients were more likely to report respiratory symptoms such as wheezing (OR 3.51, 95%CI 2.19-5.63, 3 studies) and phlegm (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.38-3.38, 3 studies), had more severe dyspnea (mean difference in modified Medical Research Council scale 0.52, 95%CI 0.40-0.64, 3 studies), and slightly greater smoking history than undiagnosed patients. Patient age, sex, current smoking status, and the presence of coughing were not associated with a previous diagnosis. Undiagnosed patients had less severe airflow obstruction and fewer respiratory symptoms than diagnosed patients. The lower disease burden in undiagnosed patients may significantly delay the diagnosis of COPD.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 15%
Other 5 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Researcher 4 12%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 21%
Computer Science 2 6%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 9 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 March 2020.
All research outputs
#1,324,769
of 16,007,413 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#112
of 2,022 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,165
of 368,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,007,413 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,022 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 368,137 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them