Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 441

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Gender difference in smoking effects on lung function and risk of hospitalization for COPD: results from a Danish longitudinal population study

Open access
Prescott, E, Bjerg, AM, Andersen, PK, Lange, P, Vestbo, J·1997·European Respiratory Journal

Abstract

Recent findings suggest that females may be more susceptible than males to the deleterious influence of tobacco smoking in developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This paper studies the interaction of gender and smoking on development of COPD as assessed by lung function and hospital admission. A total of 13,897 subjects, born after 1920, from two population studies, 9,083 from the Copenhagen City Heart Study (CCHS) and 4,814 from the Glostrup Population Studies (GPS), were followed for 7-16 yrs. Data were linked with information on hospital admissions caused by COPD. Based on cross-sectional data, in the CCHS the estimated excess loss of forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) per pack-year of smoking was 7.4 mL in female smokers who inhaled and 6.3 mL in male smokers who inhaled. In the GPS, the corresponding excess loss of FEV1 was 10.5 and 8.4 mL in females and males, respectively. Two hundred and eighteen subjects in the CCHS and 23 in the GPS were hospitalized during follow-up. Risk associated with pack-years was higher in females than in males (relative risks (RRs) for 1-20, 20-40 and >40 pack-years were 7.0 (3.5-14.1), 9.8 (4.9-19.6) and 23.3 (10.7-50.9) in females, and 3.2 (1.1-9.1), 5.7 (2.2-14.3) and 8.4 (3.3-21.6) in males) but the interaction term gender x pack-years did not reach significance (p=0.08). Results were similar in the GPS. After adjusting for smoking in more detail, females in both cohorts had an increased risk of hospitalization for COPD compared to males with a RR of 1.5 (1.2-2.1) in the CCHS and 3.6 (1.4-9.0) in the GPS. This was not likely to be caused by a generally increased rate of hospital admission for females. Results were similar when including deaths from COPD as endpoint. In two independent population samples, smoking had greater impact on the lung function of females than males, and after adjusting for smoking females subsequently suffered a higher risk of being admitted to hospital for COPD. Results suggest that adverse effects of smoking on lung function may be greater in females than in males.

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 · 10.1183/09031936.97.10040822

Cites

23 of 23 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 23 references

Cited by

See all 441

Metadata

Authors
Prescott, E., Bjerg, A., Andersen, P., Lange, P., & Vestbo, J.
Venue
European Respiratory Journal
Published
1997-04-01
Volume
10
Issue
4
Pages
822-827
ISSN
  • 0903-1936 (ISSN-L)
  • 1399-3003
OpenAlex
W2119523546
Cited by
441
References
23
FWCI
9.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Gender difference in smoking effects on lung function and risk of hospitalization for COPD: results from a Danish longitudinal population study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1183/09031936.97.10040822
The paper
Prescott, E., Bjerg, A., Andersen, P., Lange, P., & Vestbo, J. (1997). Gender difference in smoking effects on lung function and risk of hospitalization for COPD: results from a Danish longitudinal population study. European Respiratory Journal. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.97.10040822

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.