Screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Validity and reliability of a portable device in non-specialized healthcare settings

44Citations
Citations of this article
93Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Introduction and Objectives The underdiagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) could be improved through screening using portable devices simpler than conventional spirometers in specific healthcare settings to reach a higher percentage of the at-risk population. This study was designed to assess the validity and reliability of the COPD-6 portable device to screen for COPD in non-specialized healthcare settings. Methods Prospective cohort study to validate a diagnostic test. Three cohorts were recruited: primary care (PC), emergency services (ES) and community pharmacies (CPh). Study population: individuals with risk factors for COPD (40 years, smoking 10 pack-years, with respiratory symptoms). The values measured using the COPD-6 were FEV1, FEV6 and the FEV1/ FEV6 ratio. Subsequently, participants underwent conventional spirometry at hospital, using a post-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC value 0.7 as the gold standard criterion for the COPD diagnosis. Results 437 participants were included, 362 were valid for the analysis. COPD was diagnosed in 114 patients (31.5%). The area under the ROC curve for the COPD-6 for COPD screening was 0.8.The best cut-off point for the FEV1/FEV6 ratio was 0.8 (sensitivity, 92.1%) using spirometry with the bronchodilator test as the gold standard. There were practically no differences in the COPD-6 performancein the different settings and also regarding age, gender and smoking status. Conclusions The COPD-6 device is a valid tool for COPD screening in non-specialized healthcare settings. In this context, the best cut-off point for the FEV1/FEV6 ratio is 0.8.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Represas-Represas, C., Fernandez-Villar, A., Ruano-Ravina, A., Priegue-Carrera, A., & Botana-Rial, M. (2016). Screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Validity and reliability of a portable device in non-specialized healthcare settings. PLoS ONE, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145571

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free