↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Inverse relationship between nonadherence to original GOLD treatment guidelines and exacerbations of COPD

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, January 2017
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
Inverse relationship between nonadherence to original GOLD treatment guidelines and exacerbations of COPD
Published in
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, January 2017
DOI 10.2147/copd.s119507
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hussein D Foda, Anthony Brehm, Karen Goldsteen, Norman H Edelman

Abstract

Prescriber disagreement is among the reasons for poor adherence to COPD treatment guidelines; it is yet not clear whether this leads to adverse outcomes. We tested whether undertreatment according to the original Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines led to increased exacerbations. Records of 878 patients with spirometrically confirmed COPD who were followed from 2005 to 2010 at one Veterans Administration (VA) Medical Center were analyzed. Analysis of variance was performed to assess differences in exacerbation rates between severity groups. Logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the relationship between noncompliance with guidelines and exacerbation rates. About 19% were appropriately treated by guidelines; 14% overtreated, 44% under-treated, and in 23% treatment did not follow any guideline. Logistic regression revealed a strong inverse relationship between undertreatment and exacerbation rate when severity of obstruction was held constant. Exacerbations per year by GOLD stage were significantly different from each other: mild 0.15, moderate 0.27, severe 0.38, very severe 0.72, and substantially fewer than previously reported. The guidelines were largely not followed. Undertreatment predominated but, contrary to expectations, was associated with fewer exacerbations. Thus, clinicians were likely advancing therapy primarily based upon exacerbation rates as was subsequently recommended in revised GOLD and other more recent guidelines. In retrospect, a substantial lack of prescriber adherence to treatment guidelines may have been a signal that they required re-evaluation. This is likely to be a general principle regarding therapeutic guidelines. The identification of fewer exacerbations in this cohort than has been generally reported probably reflects the comprehensive nature of the VA system, which is more likely to identify relatively asymptomatic (ie, nonexacerbating) COPD patients. Accordingly, these rates may better reflect those in the general population. In addition, the lower rates may reflect the more complete preventive care provided by the VA.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 13 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Computer Science 3 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 14 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 12 October 2017.
All research outputs
#2,088,770
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#177
of 2,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,302
of 421,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#7
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 2,577 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 93% 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 421,655 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.