Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
COPD has a profound impact on daily life, yet remains underdiagnosed and undertreated. We set out to develop a brief, reliable, self-scored questionnaire to identify individuals likely to have COPD. COPD-PS development began with a list of concepts identified for inclusion using expert opinion from a clinician working group comprised of pulmonologists (n = 5) and primary care clinicians (n = 5). A national survey of 697 patients was conducted at 12 practitioner sites. Logistic regression identified items discriminating between patients with and without fixed airflow obstruction (AO, postbronchodilator FEV(1)/FVC < 70%). ROC analyses evaluated screening accuracy, compared scoring options, and assessed concurrent validity. Convergent and discriminant validity were assessed via COPD-PS and SF-12v2 score correlations. For known-groups validation, COPD-PS differences between clinical groups were tested. Test-retest reliability was evaluated in a 20% sample. Of 697 patients surveyed, 295 patients met expert review criteria for spirometry performance; 38% of these (n = 113) had results indicating AO. Five items positively predicted AO (p < 0.0001): breathlessness, productive cough, activity limitation, smoking history, and age. COPD-PS scores accurately classified AO status (area under ROC curve = 0.81) and reliable (r = 0.91). Patients with spirometry indicative of AO scored significantly higher (6.8, SD = 1.9; p< 0.0001) than patients without AO (4.0, SD = 2.3). Higher scores were associated with more severe AO, bronchodilator use, and overnight hospitalization for breathing problems. With the prevalence of COPD in the studied cohort, a score on the COPD-PS of greater than five was associated with a positive predictive value of 56.8% and negative predictive value of 86.4%. The COPD-PS accurately classified physician-reported COPD (AUC = 0.89). The COPD-PS is a brief, accurate questionnaire that can identify individuals likely to have COPD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Martínez et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: