Dataset Information

Diagnostic accuracy of a pocket screening spirometer in diagnosing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in general practice: a cross sectional validation study using tertiary care as a reference.

ABSTRACT:

Background

COPD-6™ is a lung function testing device for a rapid pre-spirometry testing to screen-out at-risk individuals not having COPD and indicating those at risk. The aim of this study was to validate COPD-6™ lung function testing (index test) in general practice in discriminating patients with COPD out of the population at risk - smokers/ex-smokers with no previous diagnosis of COPD, using measurements at tertiary care as reference standard.

Methods

Consecutive 227 subjects (115 women, 185 smokers/42 ex-smokers, ≥20 pack-years) with no previous diagnosis of COPD, aged 52.5 (SD 6.8) years from 26 general practitioners (GPs) were recruited, lung function tested with COPD-6™, referred to the tertiary institution for repeated COPD-6™ testing followed by spirometry with a bronchodilator (salbutamol), examination, and pulmonologist consultation for the diagnosis and severity of COPD.

Results

COPD was diagnosed in 43 subjects (18.9 %), with an AUC of 0.827 (95 % CI 0.769-0.875, P < 0.001) for the diagnosis of COPD when lung function was measured using COPD-6™ in GP's office with a specificity of 100 % (95 % CI, 97.95-100 %) but a very low sensitivity of 32.56 % (95 % CI, 20.49-47.48 %). Significant agreement for forced expiratory volume in 1 s measured at GP's office and at lung function lab was found (mean difference 0.01 L, p = 0.667) but not for other measured parameters (p < 0.001 for all).

Conclusions

Our study results point out that active case finding in a population at risk for COPD should be instituted (almost 20 % of undiagnosed COPD). Based on our results lung function testing with COPD-6™ can substitute spirometry testing in cases where it is not readily available to the patient/physician taken into account that the traditional FEV1/FEV6 cutoff value of <0.7 is not the only criterion for diagnosis and/or further referral.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01550679 Registered 28 September 2014, retrospectively registered.

SUBMITTER: Labor M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4992327 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Diagnostic accuracy of a pocket screening spirometer in diagnosing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in general practice: a cross sectional validation study using tertiary care as a reference.

Labor Marina M Vrbica Žarko Ž Gudelj Ivan I Labor Slavica S Plavec Davor D

BMC family practice 20160819 1

<h4>Background</h4>COPD-6™ is a lung function testing device for a rapid pre-spirometry testing to screen-out at-risk individuals not having COPD and indicating those at risk. The aim of this study was to validate COPD-6™ lung function testing (index test) in general practice in discriminating patients with COPD out of the population at risk - smokers/ex-smokers with no previous diagnosis of COPD, using measurements at tertiary care as reference standard.<h4>Methods</h4>Consecutive 227 subjects ...[more]

PMID: 27542843

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesDiagnostic delay in cancer is a challenge in primary care. Although screening tests are effective in diagnosing some cancers such as breast, colorectal and cervical cancers, symptom-based cancer diagnosis is often difficult due to its low incidence in primary care and the influence of patient anxiety, doctor-patient relationship and psychosocial context. A general practitioner's gut feeling for cancer may play a role in the early diagnosis of cancer in primary care where diagnostic resources are limited. The aim of this study is to summarise existing evidence about the test accuracy of gut feeling (index test) in symptomatic adult patients presenting to general practice, compared with multidisciplinary team-confirmed diagnosis of cancer (reference standard).DesignDiagnostic accuracy review following Cochrane methods was performed.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Medion databases.Eligibility criteriaCross-sectional, cohort and randomised studies of test accuracy that compared gut feeling (index test) with an appropriate cancer diagnosis (reference standard). No language or publication status restrictions were applied. We included all studies published before 25 March 2022.Data extraction and synthesisMethodological quality was appraised, using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) criteria. Meta-analysis with hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) models was used.ResultsOf 1286 potentially relevant studies identified, six met the inclusion criteria. For two of the six studies, data could not be extracted despite contacting authors. No studies satisfied all QUADAS-2 criteria. After meta-analysis of data from the remaining studies, the summary point of HSROC had a sensitivity of 0.40 (95% CI: 0.28, 0.53) and a specificity of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.75, 0.92).ConclusionsGut feeling for cancer when used in symptomatic adult patients in general practice has a relatively low sensitivity and high specificity. When the prevalence of cancer in the symptomatic population presenting in general practice exceeds 1.15%, the performance of gut feeling reaches the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 3% positive predictive value threshold for action, which recommends urgent access to specialist care and further investigations. The findings support the continued and expanded use of gut feeling items in referral pathways.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies of inter-practice variation of the prevalence of hypertension and diabetes mellitus showed wide variations between practices. However, in these studies inter-practice variation was calculated without controlling for clustering of patients within practices and without adjusting for patient and practice characteristics. Therefore, in the present study inter-practice variation of diagnosed hypertension and diabetes mellitus prevalence rates was calculated by 1) using a multi-level design and 2) adjusting for patient and practice characteristics.MethodsData were used from the Netherlands Information Network of General Practice (LINH) in 2004. Of all 168.045 registered patients, the presence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus and all available ICPC coded symptoms and diseases related to hypertension and diabetes, were determined. Also, the characteristics of practices were used in the analyses. Multilevel logistic regression analyses were performed.ResultsThe 95% prevalence range for the practices for the prevalence of diagnosed hypertension and diabetes mellitus was 66.3 to 181.7 per 1000 patients and 22.2 to 65.8 per 1000 patients, respectively, after adjustment for patient and practice characteristics. The presence of hypertension and diabetes was best predicted by patient characteristics. The most important predictors of hypertension were obesity (OR = 3.5), presence of a lipid disorder (OR = 3.0), and diabetes mellitus (OR = 2.6), whereas the presence of diabetes mellitus was particularly predicted by retinopathy (OR = 8.5), lipid disorders (OR = 2.8) and hypertension (OR = 2.7).ConclusionAlthough not the optimal case-mix could be used in this study, we conclude that even after adjustment for patient (demographic variables and risk factors for hypertension and diabetes mellitus) and practice characteristics (practice size and presence of a practice nurse), there is a wide difference between general practices in the prevalence rates of diagnosed hypertension and diabetes mellitus.

Project description:IntroductionVertigo is a prevalent and burdensome symptom. More than 80% of patients with vertigo are primarily treated by their general practitioner (GP) and are never referred to a medical specialist. Despite this therapeutic responsibility, the GP's diagnostic toolkit has serious limitations. All recommended tests lack empirical evidence, because a diagnostic accuracy study on vestibular disorders ('How well does test x discriminate between patients with or without target condition y?') has never been performed in general practice. The VERtigo DIagnosis study aims to fill this gap.Methods and analysisWe will perform a diagnostic accuracy study on vertigo of primary vestibular origin in general practice to assess the discriminative ability of history taking and physical examination. We will compare all index tests with a respective reference standard. We will focus on five target conditions that account for more than 95% of vertigo diagnoses in general practice: (1) benign paroxysmal positional vertigo, (2) vestibular neuritis, (3) Ménière's disease, (4) vestibular migraine (VM) and (5) central causes other than VM. As these five target conditions have a different pathophysiology and lack one generally accepted gold standard, we will use consensus diagnosis as a construct reference standard. Data for each patient, including history, physical examination and additional tests as recommended by experts in an international Delphi procedure, will be recorded on a standardised form and independently reviewed by a neurologist and otorhinolaryngologist. For each patient, the reviewers have to decide about the presence/absence of each target condition. We will calculate sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios and diagnostic ORs, followed by decision rules for each target condition.Ethics and disseminationThe study obtained approval from the Vrije Universiteit Medical Center Medical Ethical Review Committee (reference: 2022.0817-NL83111.029.22). We will publish our findings in peer-reviewed international journals.Trial registration numberISRCTN97250704.

Dataset Information

Diagnostic accuracy of a pocket screening spirometer in diagnosing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in general practice: a cross sectional validation study using tertiary care as a reference.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Diagnostic accuracy of a pocket screening spirometer in diagnosing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in general practice: a cross sectional validation study using tertiary care as a reference.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets