Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 265

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of spirometry criteria for the diagnosis of COPD: results from the BOLD study

Open access
Vollmer, W. M., Gíslason, Þ., Burney, P., Enright, P. L., Gulsvik, A., Kocabas, A., Buist, A. S.·2009·European Respiratory Journal

Abstract

Published guidelines recommend spirometry to accurately diagnose chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, even spirometry-based COPD prevalence estimates can vary widely. We compared properties of several spirometry-based COPD definitions using data from the international Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease (BOLD)study. 14 sites recruited population-based samples of adults aged ≥40 yrs. Procedures included standardised questionnaires and post-bronchodilator spirometry. 10,001 individuals provided usable data. Use of the lower limit of normal (LLN) forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1) to forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio reduced the age-related increases in COPD prevalence that are seen among healthy never-smokers when using the fixed ratio criterion (FEV 1/FVC <0.7) recommended by the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease. The added requirement of an FEV 1 either <80% predicted or below the LLN further reduced age-related increases and also led to the least site-to-site variability in prevalence estimates after adjusting for potential confounders. Use of the FEV 1/FEV 6 ratio in place of the FEV 1/FVC yielded similar prevalence estimates. Use of the FEV 1/FVC<LLN criterion instead of the FEV 1/FVC <0.7 should minimise known age biases and better reflect clinically significant irreversible airflow limitation. Our study also supports the use of the FEV 1/FEV 6 as a practical substitute for the FEV 1/FVC.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1183/09031936.00164608

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 30 references

Cited by

See all 265

Metadata

Authors
Vollmer, W. M., Gíslason, Þ., Burney, P., Enright, P. L., Gulsvik, A., Kocabas, A., & Buist, A. S.
Venue
European Respiratory Journal
Published
2009-05-21
Volume
34
Issue
3
Pages
588-597
ISSN
  • 0903-1936 (ISSN-L)
  • 1399-3003
OpenAlex
W2169071046
Cited by
265
References
30
FWCI
22.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of spirometry criteria for the diagnosis of COPD: results from the BOLD study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1183/09031936.00164608
The paper
Vollmer, W. M., Gíslason, Þ., Burney, P., Enright, P. L., Gulsvik, A., Kocabas, A., & Buist, A. S. (2009). Comparison of spirometry criteria for the diagnosis of COPD: results from the BOLD study. European Respiratory Journal. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00164608

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.