For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
49
views
67
references
 Top references
cited by
53
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      328
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Outcome measures in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): strengths and limitations

      review-article
      Author(s): 1 , 2 , 1 ,
      Publication date (Electronic):
      Journal: Respiratory Research
      Publisher: BioMed Central

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Current methods for assessing clinical outcomes in COPD mainly rely on physiological tests combined with the use of questionnaires. The present review considers commonly used outcome measures such as lung function, health status, exercise capacity and physical activity, dyspnoea, exacerbations, the multi-dimensional BODE score, and mortality. Based on current published data, we provide a concise overview of the principles, strengths and weaknesses, and discuss open questions related to each methodology. Reviewed is the current set of markers for measuring clinically relevant outcomes with particular emphasis on their limitations and opportunities that should be recognized when assessing and interpreting their use in clinical trials of COPD.

          Related collections

          Most cited references67

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Development of a shuttle walking test of disability in patients with chronic airways obstruction.

          S J Singh, M. Morgan, S. Scott … (1992)
          The aim was to develop a standardised and externally paced field walking test, incorporating an incremental and progressive structure, to assess functional capacity in patients with chronic airways obstruction. The usefulness of two different shuttle walking test protocols was examined in two separate groups of patients. The initial 10 level protocol (group A, n = 10) and a subsequent, modified, 12 level protocol (group B, n = 10) differed in the number of increments and in the speeds of walking. Patients performed three shuttle walking tests one week apart. Then the performance of patients (group C, n = 15) in the six minute walking test was compared with that in the second (modified) shuttle walking test protocol. Heart rate was recorded during all the exercise tests with a short range telemetry device. The 12 level modified protocol provided a measure of functional capacity in patients with a wide range of disability and was reproducible after just one practice walk; the mean difference between trial 2 v 3 was -2.0 (95% CI -21.9 to 17.9) m. There was a significant relation between the distance walked in the six minute walking test and the shuttle walking test (rho = 0.68) but the six minute walking test appeared to overestimate the extent of disability in some patients. The shuttle test provoked a graded cardiovascular response not evident in the six minute test. Moreover, the maximal heart rates attained were significantly higher for the shuttle walking test than for the six minute test. The shuttle walking test constitutes a standardised incremental field walking test that provokes a symptom limited maximal performance. It provides an objective measurement of disability and allows direct comparison of patients' performance.
          Article 0 comments Cited 336 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Mortality in COPD: Role of comorbidities.

            D Sin, N R Anthonisen, J. Soriano … (2006)
            Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) represents an increasing burden throughout the world. COPD-related mortality is probably underestimated because of the difficulties associated with identifying the precise cause of death. Respiratory failure is considered the major cause of death in advanced COPD. Comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease and lung cancer are also major causes and, in mild-to-moderate COPD, are the leading causes of mortality. The links between COPD and these conditions are not fully understood. However, a link through the inflammation pathway has been suggested, as persistent low-grade pulmonary and systemic inflammation, both known risk factors for cardiovascular disease and cancer, are present in COPD independent of cigarette smoking. Lung-specific measurements, such as forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)), predict mortality in COPD and in the general population. However, composite tools, such as health-status measurements (e.g. St George's Respiratory Questionnaire) and the BODE index, which incorporates Body mass index, lung function (airflow Obstruction), Dyspnoea and Exercise capacity, predict mortality better than FEV(1) alone. These multidimensional tools may be more valuable because, unlike predictive approaches based on single parameters, they can reflect the range of comorbidities and the complexity of underlying mechanisms associated with COPD. The current paper reviews the role of comorbidities in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease mortality, the putative underlying pathogenic link between chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and comorbid conditions (i.e. inflammation), and the tools used to predict chronic obstructive pulmonary disease mortality.
            Article 0 comments Cited 265 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The effects of a smoking cessation intervention on 14.5-year mortality: a randomized clinical trial.

              Nicholas Anthonisen, Melissa A Skeans, Robert Wise … (2005)
              Randomized clinical trials have not yet demonstrated the mortality benefit of smoking cessation. To assess the long-term effect on mortality of a randomly applied smoking cessation program. The Lung Health Study was a randomized clinical trial of smoking cessation. Special intervention participants received the smoking intervention program and were compared with usual care participants. Vital status was followed up to 14.5 years. 10 clinical centers in the United States and Canada. 5887 middle-aged volunteers with asymptomatic airway obstruction. All-cause mortality and mortality due to cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, and other respiratory disease. The intervention was a 10-week smoking cessation program that included a strong physician message and 12 group sessions using behavior modification and nicotine gum, plus either ipratropium or a placebo inhaler. At 5 years, 21.7% of special intervention participants had stopped smoking since study entry compared with 5.4% of usual care participants. After up to 14.5 years of follow-up, 731 patients died: 33% of lung cancer, 22% of cardiovascular disease, 7.8% of respiratory disease other than cancer, and 2.3% of unknown causes. All-cause mortality was significantly lower in the special intervention group than in the usual care group (8.83 per 1000 person-years vs. 10.38 per 1000 person-years; P = 0.03). The hazard ratio for mortality in the usual care group compared with the special intervention group was 1.18 (95% CI, 1.02 to 1.37). Differences in death rates for both lung cancer and cardiovascular disease were greater when death rates were analyzed by smoking habit. Results apply only to individuals with airway obstruction. Smoking cessation intervention programs can have a substantial effect on subsequent mortality, even when successful in a minority of participants.
              Article 0 comments Cited 226 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Respir Res
                Title: Respiratory Research
                Publisher: BioMed Central
                ISSN (Print): 1465-9921
                ISSN (Electronic): 1465-993X
                Publication date (Print): 2010
                Publication date (Electronic): 17 June 2010
                Volume: 11
                Issue: 1
                Page: 79
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Pulmonary Department, University Hospital, Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany
                [2 ]Department of Pneumology, University Hospital Giessen and Marburg, Marburg, Germany
                Article
                Publisher ID: 1465-9921-11-79
                DOI: 10.1186/1465-9921-11-79
                PMC ID: 2902430
                PubMed ID: 20565728
                SO-VID: f7a73de1-116b-4838-ae2c-33787414b061
                Copyright © Copyright ©2010 Glaab et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
                License:

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Date received : 23 December 2009
                Date accepted : 17 June 2010
                Categories
                Subject: Review

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Respiratory medicine
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Respiratory medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content328

                See all similar

                Cited by50

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors1,611

                See all reference authors