Cited by 13Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchAsthma and respiratory diseasesPrimary Care and Health Outcomes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Usefulness of a patient symptom diary card in the monitoring of exacerbations of chronic bronchitis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Diaries and monitoring of exacerbations of CB and COPD

Llor, C., Moragas, A., Miravitlles, M., on behalf of the investigators of the ESAB study·2012·International Journal of Clinical Practice

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the usefulness of a patient diary card of symptoms for monitoring the evolution of an exacerbation of chronic bronchitis (CB) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in primary care. METHOD: Multicentre, observational study. Patients with an exacerbation filled out a diary every day before bedtime during 10 days. The diary score ranged from 0 (best) to 28 (worst). A visit was performed at day 15 to collect the patient diaries. RESULTS: Of the 1101 patients studied 921 returned the diaries (83.7%). Clinical failure was found in 236 patients (25.6%). The mean global score on day 1 was 21.5 ± 3.8. Patients considered as cured at day 10 presented a lower score at day 1 (21.1 ± 3.9) vs. those who failed (22.6 ± 4.2; p < 0.001). When no reduction was observed in the score from days 1 to 3, the percentage of failures was 36.1%, being only 11.6% with a reduction of 5 points or more (p < 0.001). The strongest correlation with failure was observed with general status, breathing, symptom scale and the need for extra inhaler doses. CONCLUSION: A symptom diary card seems to be a valuable tool to monitor the evolution of an acute exacerbation of CB/COPD in primary care.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2012.02930.x

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 27 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 13

Metadata

Authors
Llor, C., Moragas, A., Miravitlles, M., & on behalf of the investigators of the ESAB study
Affiliations
  • Universitat Rovira i Virgili (ES)
  • Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Respiratorias (ES)
Corresponding author
Llor, C.
Venue
International Journal of Clinical Practice
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-06-15
Volume
66
Issue
7
Pages
711-717
ISSN
1368-5031 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1963450442
Cited by
13
References
27
Citations by year
2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 3
FWCI
1.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Asthma and respiratory diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
chronic bronchitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, acute exacerbation, primary care, clinical failure, symptom scores, inhaler use
MeSH terms
Aged, Color, Dyspnea, Female, Humans, Male, Medical Records, Middle Aged, Sputum, Disease Progression, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive, Bronchitis, Chronic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review