A combination of the IPAG questionnaire and PiKo-6® flow meter is a valuable screening tool for COPD in the primary care setting

Sichletidis, Lazaros; Spyratos, Dionisios; Papaioannou, Maria; Chloros, Diamantis; Tsiotsios, Anastasios; Tsagaraki, V.; Haidich, Anna‐Bettina

doi:10.4104/pcrj.2011.00038

Cited by 80 publications

(145 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

131

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…11,12 It is also known as the International Primary Care Airways Guidelines (IPAG) questionnaire. 15 The CDQ has a three-tier scoring system which assigns subjects into groups of low, intermediate, and high likelihood of COPD based on the questionnaire score. 12 16 Two more recent primary care CDQ studies, also in the Netherlands, used the CDQ as a selection tool for spirometry.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…18 Although the CDQ was not developed as a diagnostic tool, it has been validated in comparison with spirometry in subjects selected from primary care settings in Europe and Australia and hospital outpatient clinics in Japan. 15,[19][20][21] Two of these studies investigated the validity of the Piko-6 ® flow meter (a form of microspirometry) as a screening tool for COPD diagnosis in primary care. 15,21 These studies also validated the CDQ and compared it with micro-spirometry.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…15,[19][20][21] Two of these studies investigated the validity of the Piko-6 ® flow meter (a form of microspirometry) as a screening tool for COPD diagnosis in primary care. 15,21 These studies also validated the CDQ and compared it with micro-spirometry. 15,21 Other questionnaires such as the COPD Population Screener Questionnaire (COPD-PS) and a condensed version of the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) have been developed but have not undergone external validation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…15,21 These studies also validated the CDQ and compared it with micro-spirometry. 15,21 Other questionnaires such as the COPD Population Screener Questionnaire (COPD-PS) and a condensed version of the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) have been developed but have not undergone external validation. 13,14 The aim of this study was to validate the CDQ externally in a large sample of current and former smokers with no prior diagnosis of obstructive lung disease recruited from general practices in Sydney, Australia.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…21 The analysis methods were based on a protocol outlined by Price et al 12 The study measured the relationship between CDQ scores and COPD proportions determined by spirometry and these results were compared with the findings in the study by Price et al, one Australian and three international external validation studies. 12,15,[19][20][21] The variability in how the CDQ performed in this and other external validation studies was examined.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Validation of the COPD Diagnostic Questionnaire in an Australian general practice cohort: a cross-sectional study

Stanley

Hasan²,

Crockett

et al. 2014

Primary Care Respiratory Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The gold standard for the diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is spirometry, but there are barriers to its use in primary care. Aims: To externally validate the COPD Diagnostic Questionnaire (CDQ) as a diagnostic tool in patients at increased risk in Australian general practice and to compare its performance with other CDQ validation studies. Methods: Patients were recruited from 36 general practices in Sydney, Australia. Former or current smokers aged 40–85 years with no prior COPD diagnosis were invited to a case-finding appointment with the practice nurse. The CDQ was collected and pre- and postbronchodilator spirometry was performed. Cases for whom complete CDQ data were present and the spirometry met quality standards were analysed. Results: Of 1,631 patients who attended case-finding recruitment, 1,054 (65%) could be analysed. Spirometry showed 13% had COPD. The ability of the CDQ to discriminate between patients with and without COPD was fair, represented by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.713. With a CDQ cut-off point value of 16.5 the sensitivity was 80% and specificity 47% and, at a cut-off point value of 19.5, the sensitivity was 63% and specificity 70%. Conclusions: The CDQ did not discriminate between patients with and without COPD accurately enough to use as a diagnostic tool in patients at increased risk of COPD in Australian general practice. Further research is needed on the value of the CDQ as a tool for selecting patients for spirometry.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%