Accuracy of the COPD diagnostic questionnaire as a screening tool in primary care

Abstract

Background The COPD Diagnostic Questionnaire (CDQ) was developed to identify people who would benefit from spirometry testing to confirm Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). The aim of this study was to determine the usefulness of a cut-off score of 16.5 on the CDQ in identifying those at increased risk of obstruction, in a mixed population of people ‘at risk’ of COPD and those with an ‘existing’ COPD diagnosis. Methods People ‘at risk’ of COPD (aged > 40 years, current/ex-smoker) and those with ‘existing’ COPD were identified from four general practices and invited to participate. Participants completed the CDQ and those with a CDQ score ≥ 16.5 were categorised as having intermediate to increased likelihood of airflow obstruction. Pre and post-bronchodilator spirometry determined the presence of airway obstruction (FEV1/FVC ratio < 0.7). Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the CDQ was determined compared to spirometry as the gold standard. Results One hundred forty-one participants attended an initial assessment (‘at risk’ = 111 (79%), ‘existing’ COPD = 30 (21%)). A cut-off score of 16.5 corresponded to a sensitivity of 81%, specificity of 36% and accuracy of 50%, in the entire mixed population. The area under the ROC curve was 0.59 ± 0.50 indicating low diagnostic accuracy of the CDQ. Similar results were found in the ‘existing’ COPD group alone. Conclusion Whilst a cut-off score of 16.5 on the CDQ may result in a large number of false positives, clinicians may still wish to use the CDQ to refine who receives spirometry due to its high sensitivity. Trial registration ANZCTR, ACTRN12619001127190. Registered 12 August 2019 – Retrospectively registered, http://www.ANZCTR.org.au/ACTRN12619001127190.aspx

EPOC: Diagnóstico oportuno en el primer nivel de atención

“…Lisa Pagano et al [3], realizaron un estudio transversal en Australia en el primer nivel de atención. Se incluyeron dos grupos; aquellos sujetos con riesgo para desarrollar EPOC y sujetos con diagnóstico de EPOC.…”

Estimating the global prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Using the LLN criteria, the respective prevalence of irreversible airflow obstruction among never smokers, former smokers, and current smokers were 3.77%, 7.55%, and 11.13% (Table 4). [31] Clearly defined (1) Not mentioned (0) 241 (0) Objective (1) FR and LLN (2) moderate quality Michiguchi et al 2022 [32] Clearly defined (1) Not mentioned (0) n = 4364 (1) Objective ( 1) FR (2) moderate quality Pagano et al 2022 [33] Clearly defined (1) Not mentioned (0) 141 (0) Objective ( 1) FR (2) moderate quality Wang et al 2022 [34] Clearly defined (1) Hazards sampling (1) n = 33 664 (1) Objective ( 1) FR (2) high quality Xiao et al 2022 [35] Clearly defined (1) Randomized ( 1) n = 202 (0) Objective ( 1) FR (2) moderate quality Kim et Kang 2021 [36] Clearly defined (1) Multi-stage complex randomness ( 1) [42] Clearly defined (1) Multi-stage randomness ( 1)…”

Proposing the potential of utilizing the CAT score for early detection of COPD in asymptomatic patients, shifting towards a patient-centered approach: A review

“…[81] Several other diagnostic tools have been developed to detect clinically significant COPD, and various screening surveys have been launched. [82][83][84][85][86] While these instruments are often user-friendly for patients, their administration should be approached cautiously, considering their limitations. Their moderate accuracy and inability to differentiate between stages of obstruction underscore the necessity of using them in conjunction with spirometry.…”