Cited by 1,157Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchAsthma and respiratory diseasesSmoking Behavior and Cessation

Characterisation of COPD heterogeneity in the ECLIPSE cohort

Open access
the Evaluation of COPD Longitudinally to Identify Predictive Surrogate Endpoints (ECLIPSE) investigators, Agusti, Alvar, Calverley, Peter MA, Celli, Bartolome, Coxson, Harvey O, Edwards, Lisa D, Lomas, David A, MacNee, William +7 more·2010·Respiratory Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a complex condition with pulmonary and extra-pulmonary manifestations. This study describes the heterogeneity of COPD in a large and well characterised and controlled COPD cohort (ECLIPSE). METHODS: We studied 2164 clinically stable COPD patients, 337 smokers with normal lung function and 245 never smokers. In these individuals, we measured clinical parameters, nutritional status, spirometry, exercise tolerance, and amount of emphysema by computed tomography. RESULTS: COPD patients were slightly older than controls and had more pack years of smoking than smokers with normal lung function. Co-morbidities were more prevalent in COPD patients than in controls, and occurred to the same extent irrespective of the GOLD stage. The severity of airflow limitation in COPD patients was poorly related to the degree of breathlessness, health status, presence of co-morbidity, exercise capacity and number of exacerbations reported in the year before the study. The distribution of these variables within each GOLD stage was wide. Even in subjects with severe airflow obstruction, a substantial proportion did not report symptoms, exacerbations or exercise limitation. The amount of emphysema increased with GOLD severity. The prevalence of bronchiectasis was low (4%) but also increased with GOLD stage. Some gender differences were also identified. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical manifestations of COPD are highly variable and the degree of airflow limitation does not capture the heterogeneity of the disease.

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 · 10.1186/1465-9921-11-122

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
the Evaluation of COPD Longitudinally to Identify Predictive Surrogate Endpoints (ECLIPSE) investigators, Agusti, A., Calverley, P. M., Celli, B., Coxson, H. O., Edwards, L. D., Lomas, D. A., MacNee, W., Miller, B. E., Rennard, S., Silverman, E. K., Tal-Singer, R., Wouters, E., Yates, J. C., & Vestbo, J.
Affiliations
  • Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Respiratorias (ES)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Edinburgh Royal Infirmary (GB)
  • GlaxoSmithKline (United States) (US)
  • Maastricht University Medical Centre (NL)
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
Venue
Respiratory Research
Published
2010-09-10
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
122-122
ISSN
  • 1465-9921 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-993X
OpenAlex
W2142096203
Cited by
1,157
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 83 · 2020: 91 · 2019: 73 · 2018: 94 · 2017: 101 · 2016: 96 · 2015: 103 · 2014: 104 · 2013: 90 · 2012: 67
FWCI
57.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Respiratory Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Dipòsit Digital de la Universitat de Barcelona (Universitat de Barcelona) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RECERCAT (Consorci de Serveis Universitaris de Catalunya) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • DigitalCommons@UNMC (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
GlaxoSmithKline
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Asthma and respiratory diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
Keywords
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, disease heterogeneity, ECLIPSE cohort, GOLD severity, airflow obstruction, dyspnea, comorbidities, exacerbations, exercise capacity, emphysema, bronchiectasis, nutritional status, smoking, never smokers, sex differences
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Respiratory Function Tests, Smoking, Cohort Studies, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive

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