Reliability, validity and minimal detectable change of computerized respiratory sounds in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Abstract

CRS are reliable and valid. Their use, integrated with other clinical and patient-reported measures, may fill the gap of assessing small airways and contribute toward a patient's comprehensive evaluation.

Minimal Important and Detectable Differences of Respiratory Measures in Outpatients with AECOPD†

“…Respiratory sounds were acquired with air-coupled electret microphones (C 417PP, AKG Acoustics GmbH, Vienna, Austria) and a multi-channel audio interface (AudioBox 1818 VSL, PreSonus, Florida, USA) and were analysed with previous validated algorithms [25][26][27] . Number of crackles and wheeze occupation rate acquired in posterior locations have been shown to be valid against lung function (-0.11<rs<-0.44) 28 , reliable (0.25<ICC1,2<0.86) 28,29 and sensitive to changes in patients with stable and exacerbated COPD 15,30 . Further details on respiratory sound acquisition and analysis have been provided elsewhere 31 .…”

Reliability and Validity of Computerized Adventitious Respiratory Sounds in People with Bronchiectasis

“…Moreover, the crackles parameters reported in this study are rarely used in clinical practice and in trials evaluating the effects of interventions, as humans cannot recognise these parameters being totally dependent on the available algorithms. In fact, the number of crackles is a parameter more commonly reported in previous studies evaluating psychometric properties of computerized ARS [16,17]. For these reasons, we believe that the total number of crackles is a more useful parameter to evaluate treatment effects and monitor patients in the long run (e.g., helping in the diagnosis of interstitial lung disease [40], monitoring exacerbations in people with COPD [13], assessing the effects of pulmonary rehabilitation [14]).…”

“…Overall, the acceptable within-day and between-day reliability of crackles (mean number) [16,17] and wheezes (mean number [16], occupation rate [17]) were reported. In this population, computerized ARS had negligible-to-moderate correlations with lung function and low positive correlations with patient-reported outcome measures [17]. Yet, in people with bronchiectasis, computerized ARS have been poorly explored.…”

“…The reliability and validity of computerized ARS have been studied in people with COPD [16,17]. Overall, the acceptable within-day and between-day reliability of crackles (mean number) [16,17] and wheezes (mean number [16], occupation rate [17]) were reported.…”

“…The reliability and validity of computerized ARS have been studied in people with COPD [16,17]. Overall, the acceptable within-day and between-day reliability of crackles (mean number) [16,17] and wheezes (mean number [16], occupation rate [17]) were reported. In this population, computerized ARS had negligible-to-moderate correlations with lung function and low positive correlations with patient-reported outcome measures [17].…”