guideline-based survey of outpatient copd management by pulmonary specialists in germany

Clicks: 134
ID: 217585
2012
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Popular

Ranked #58 of 88 articles by views in tijdschrift voor geneeskunde

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Thomas Glaab1,2, Claus Vogelmeier3, Andreas Hellmann4, Roland Buhl11Department of Respiratory Diseases III, Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, 2Medical Affairs Germany, Respiratory Medicine, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH and Co, KG, Ingelheim, 3Department of Respiratory Diseases, University Hospitals of Giessen and Marburg, Marburg, 4Federal Association of Pneumologists, Augsburg, GermanyBackground: Little is known about the role of guidelines for the practical management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) by office-based pulmonary specialists. The aim of this study was to assess their outpatient management in relation to current guideline recommendations for COPD.Methods: A nationwide prospective cross-sectional COPD questionnaire survey in the form of a multiple-choice questionnaire was sent to 1000 office-based respiratory specialists in Germany. The product-neutral questions focused on routine COPD management and were based on current national and international COPD guideline recommendations being consistent in severity classification and treatment recommendations.Results: A total of 590 pulmonary specialists (59%) participated in the survey. Body plethysmography was considered the standard for diagnosis (65.9%), followed by spirometry (32%). Most respondents were able to cite the correct spirometric criteria for classifying moderate (87%) to very severe COPD (77%). A quarter of the respondents equated the World Health Organization (WHO) definition of chronic bronchitis with COPD. Notably, most participants preferred the updated national COPD guidelines (51.4%) to the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines (40.2%). Improvement of functional exercise capacity and quality of life were considered the two most relevant treatment goals; whereas impact on mortality was secondary. Treatment of COPD largely complied with the guidelines. However, a significant percentage of the pulmonary specialists differed in their assessment of the benefits of various therapeutic measures from evidence-based results. Referral for pulmonary rehabilitation was uncommon, regardless of the severity of COPD.Conclusion: The findings of this large national survey suggest that most pulmonary specialists adhere to the current COPD guideline recommendations in daily practice. However, physicians' knowledge of guidelines is not sufficient as the sole benchmark when assessing their implementation in day-to-day practice. Necessary changes in the health care system must include more effective ways to transfer knowledge to clinical practice and to give access to interventions of proven clinical benefit.Keywords: pulmonary rehabilitation, survey, GOLD, clinical outcomes, therapy, diagnosis
Reference Key
r2012internationalguideline-based Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Buhl R;Hellmann A;Vogelmeier C;Glaab T
Journal tijdschrift voor geneeskunde
Year 2012
DOI
DOI not found
URL
http://www.dovepress.com/guideline-based-survey-of-outpatient-copd-management-by-pulmonary-spec-a9254
Keywords
diseases of the respiratory system

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.