Accuracy of Vitalograph lung monitor as a screening test for COPD in primary care.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Dickens AP
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6941963 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Universal pain screening with a 0-10 pain intensity numeric rating scale (NRS) has been widely implemented in primary care.To evaluate the accuracy of the NRS as a screening test to identify primary care patients with clinically important pain.Prospective diagnostic accuracy study275 adult clinic patients were enrolled from September 2005 to March 2006.We operationalized clinically important pain using two alternate definitions: (1) pain that interferes with functioning (Brief Pain Inventory interference scale > or = 5) and (2) pain that motivates a physician visit (patient-reported reason for the visit).22% of patients reported a pain symptom as the main reason for the visit. The most common pain locations were lower extremity (21%) and back/neck (18%). The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve for the NRS as a test for pain that interferes with functioning was 0.76, indicating fair accuracy. A pain screening NRS score of 1 was 69% sensitive (95% CI 60-78) for pain that interferes with functioning. Multilevel likelihood ratios for scores of 0, 1-3, 4-6, and 7-10 were 0.39 (0.29-0.53), 0.99 (0.38-2.60), 2.67 (1.56-4.57), and 5.60 (3.06-10.26), respectively. Results were similar when NRS scores were evaluated against the alternate definition of clinically important pain (pain that motivates a physician visit).The most commonly used measure for pain screening may have only modest accuracy for identifying patients with clinically important pain in primary care. Further research is needed to evaluate whether pain screening improves patient outcomes in primary care.
| S-EPMC2305860 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesTo examine the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of various chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) screening tests and combinations within a Chinese primary care population.DesignScreening test accuracy study.SettingUrban and rural community health centres in four municipalities of China: Beijing (north), Chengdu (southwest), Guangzhou (south) and Shenyang (northeast).ParticipantsCommunity residents aged 40 years and above who attended community health centres for any reason were invited to participate. 2445 participants (mean age 59.8 (SD 9.6) years, 39.1% (n=956) male) completed the study (February-December 2019), 68.9% (n=1684) were never-smokers and 3.6% (n=88) had an existing COPD diagnosis. 13.7% (n=333) of participants had spirometry-confirmed airflow obstruction.InterventionsParticipants completed six index tests (screening questionnaires (COPD Diagnostic Questionnaire, COPD Assessment in Primary Care To Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk (CAPTURE), Chinese Symptom-Based Questionnaire (C-SBQ), COPD-SQ), microspirometry (COPD-6), peak flow (model of peak flow meters used in the study (USPE)) and the reference test (ndd Easy On-PC).Primary and secondary outcomesCases were defined as those with forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) below the lower limit of normal (LLN-GLI) on the reference test. Performance of individual screening tests and their combinations was evaluated, with cost-effectiveness analyses providing cost per additional true case detected.ResultsAirflow measurement devices (sensitivities 64.9% (95% CI 59.5% to 70.0%) and 67.3% (95% CI 61.9% to 72.3%), specificities 89.7% (95% CI 88.4% to 91.0%) and 82.6% (95% CI 80.9% to 84.2%) for microspirometry and peak flow, respectively) generally performed better than questionnaires, the most accurate of which was C-SBQ (sensitivity 63.1% (95% CI 57.6% to 68.3%) specificity 74.2% (95% CI 72.3% to 76.1%)). The combination of C-SBQ and microspirometry used in parallel maximised sensitivity (81.4%) (95% CI 76.8% to 85.4%) and had specificity of 68.0% (95% CI 66.0% to 70.0%), with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £64.20 (CNY385) per additional case detected compared with peak flow.ConclusionsSimple screening tests to identify undiagnosed COPD within the primary care setting in China is possible, and a combination of C-SBQ and microspirometry is the most sensitive and cost-effective. Further work is required to explore optimal cut-points and effectiveness of programme implementation.Trial registration numberISRCTN13357135.
| S-EPMC8461701 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLow-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scan for lung cancer screening is underutilized. Studies suggest that up to one-third of providers do not know the current lung cancer screening guidelines. Thus, identifying the barriers to utilization of LDCT scan is essential.MethodsPrimary care providers in three different healthcare settings in the United States were surveyed to assess provider knowledge of LDCT scan screening criteria, lung cancer screening practices, and barriers to the utilization of LDCT scan screening. Fisher’s Exact, Chi-Squared, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare provider responses. Multivariable logistic regression was used to test the association between provider characteristics and the likelihood of utilizing LDCT scan for lung cancer screening.ResultsThe survey was sent to 614 providers, with a 15.7% response rate. Overall, 29.2% of providers report never ordering LDCT scans for eligible patients. Providers practicing at a community or academic hospital more frequently order LDCT scans than those practicing at a safety net hospital. Academic- and community-based providers received a significantly higher mean knowledge score than safety net-based providers [academic 6.84 (SD 1.33), community 6.72 (SD 1.46), safety net 5.85 (SD 1.38); P<0.01]. Overall, only 6.2% of respondents correctly identified all six Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services eligibility criteria when challenged with three incorrect criteria. Common barriers to utilization of LDCT scan included failure of the electronic medical record (EMR) to notify providers of eligible patients (54.7%), patient refusal (37%), perceived high false-positive rate leading to unnecessary procedures (18.9%), provider time constraints (16.8%), and lack of insurance coverage (13.7%).ConclusionsProvider knowledge of lung cancer screening guidelines varies, perhaps contributing to underutilization of LDCT scan for lung cancer screening. Improved provider education at safety net hospitals and improving EMR-based best practice alerts may improve the rate of lung cancer screening.
| S-EPMC7330370 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionIdentification of people who have or are at risk of frailty enables targeted interventions, and the use of tools that screen for frailty using electronic records (which we term as validated electronic frailty measures (VEFMs)) within primary care is incentivised by NHS England. We carried out a systematic review to establish the sensitivity and specificity of available primary care VEFMs when compared to a reference standard in-person assessment.MethodsMedline, Pubmed, CENTRAL, CINHAL and Embase searches identified studies comparing a primary care VEFM with in-person assessment. Studies were quality assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies revised tool. Sensitivity and specificity values were extracted or were calculated and pooled using StatsDirect.ResultsThere were 2,245 titles screened, with 10 studies included. These described three different index tests: electronic frailty index (eFI), claims-based frailty index (cFI) and polypharmacy. Frailty Phenotype was the reference standard in each study. One study of 60 patients examined the eFI, reporting a sensitivity of 0.84 (95% CI = 0.55, 0.98) and a specificity of 0.78 (0.64, 0.89). Two studies of 7,679 patients examined cFI, with a pooled sensitivity of 0.48 (95% CI = 0.23, 0.74) and a specificity of 0.80 (0.53, 0.98). Seven studies of 34,328 patients examined a polypharmacy as a screening tool (defined as more than or equal to five medications) with a pooled sensitivity of 0.61 (95% CI = 0.50, 0.72) and a specificity of 0.66 (0.58, 0.73).ConclusionseFI is the best-performing VEFM; however, based on our analysis of an average UK GP practice, it would return a high number of false-positive results. In conclusion, existing electronic frailty tools may not be appropriate for primary care-based population screening.
| S-EPMC10873280 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Asthma and COPD are defined as different disease entities, but in practice patients often show features of both diseases making it challenging for primary care clinicians to establish a correct diagnosis. We aimed to establish the added value of spirometry and more advanced lung function measurements to differentiate between asthma and COPD. A cross-sectional study in 10 Dutch general practices was performed. 532 subjects were extensively screened on respiratory symptoms and lung function. Two chest physicians assessed if asthma or COPD was present. Using multivariable logistic regression analysis we assessed the ability of three scenarios (i.e. only patient history; diagnostics available to primary care; diagnostics available only to secondary care) to differentiate between the two conditions. Receiver operator characteristics (ROC) curves and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated for each scenario, with the chest physicians' assessment as golden standard. Results showed that 84 subjects were diagnosed with asthma, 138 with COPD, and 310 with no chronic respiratory disease. In the scenario including only patient history items, ROC characteristics of the model showed an AUC of 0.84 (95% CI 0.78-0.89) for differentiation between asthma and COPD. When adding diagnostics available to primary care (i.e., pre- and postbronchodilator spirometry) AUC increased to 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.93; p = 0.020). When adding more advanced secondary care diagnostic tests AUC remained 0.89 (95% CI 0.85-0.94; p = 0.967). We conclude that primary care clinicians' ability to differentiate between asthma and COPD is enhanced by spirometry testing. More advanced diagnostic tests used in hospital care settings do not seem to provide a better overall diagnostic differentiation between asthma and COPD in primary care patients.
| S-EPMC9445018 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test preference and examine the association between test preference and test completed.MethodsPatients (n = 1224) were 50-70 years, at average CRC risk, and overdue for screening. Outcome variables were preference for fecal occult blood test (FOBT), colonoscopy (COL), sigmoidoscopy (SIG), or barium enema (BE), measured by telephone survey, and concordance between test preference and test completed assessed using medical records.ResultsThirty-five percent preferred FOBT, 41.1% COL, 12.7% SIG, and 5.7% BE. Preference for SIG or COL was associated with having a physician recommendation, greater screening readiness, test-specific self-efficacy, greater CRC worry, and perceived pros of screening. Preference for FOBT was associated with self-efficacy for doing FOBT. Participants who preferred COL were more likely to complete COL compared with those who preferred another test. Of those screened, only 50% received their preferred test. Those not receiving their preferred test most often received COL (52%).ConclusionsLack of concordance between patient preference and test completed suggests that patients' preferences are not well incorporated into screening discussions and test decisions, which could contribute to low screening uptake. Physicians should acknowledge patients' preferences when discussing test options and making recommendations, which may increase patients' receptivity to screening.
| S-EPMC3274594 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Primary aldosteronism (PA) is the most common and potentially curable form of secondary hypertension, affecting 5-10% of primary care patients with hypertension. Primary care physicians have an important role in initiating the screening for PA in patients with hypertension and referring to a specialist service depending on the screening test results. The currently recommended screening test for PA is the plasma aldosterone-to-renin ratio (ARR). Test results are influenced by medications so careful patient preparation is required including adjusting existing antihypertensive medications to avoid diagnostic errors. A range of laboratory method-dependent ARR thresholds are used for the screening of PA around the world. Periodic clinical audits and case reviews by clinicians and the laboratory may help refine the local thresholds. Patients with an abnormally elevated ARR should be referred to a specialist for confirmatory testing while patients with a high pre-test probability but a normal ARR could have a repeat test in view of the within-individual variability. Despite the heterogenous ARR thresholds, measuring the ARR is still more likely to detect PA than not screening at all.
| S-EPMC9242901 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We examined the readiness of primary care clinicians to implement lung cancer screening programs in their practice settings in light of recent policy changes in the U.S. Attendees of two large continuing medical education events in Texas held in October and November of 2014 completed surveys about their current lung cancer screening practices and implementation needs. Surveys were completed by 350 participants (57.2% of registered attendees). Although 89.5% of participants routinely screened their patients for tobacco use, only 10.1% had a formal lung cancer screening program in their practice. More than half (56.0%) planned to refer eligible patients for lung cancer screening, 35.6% were not sure, and 8.3% did not plan to refer. Priority areas for implementing lung cancer screening programs in their settings included 1) greater clarity about coverage by private insurance and Medicare, 2) information about available screening centers offering low-dose computed tomography, 3) patient education and shared decision-making tools, 4) implementation toolkits and training for clinic staff, 5) integrating screening programs in electronic health records, and 6) more clarity about clinical guidelines. Practical needs related to identifying eligible patients, referral to screening centers, and tools for shared decision-making must be addressed before lung cancer screening can be implemented on a national scale.
| S-EPMC4721428 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionLung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is effective at reducing lung cancer mortality in high-risk current and former smokers. Despite the fact that screening is recommended by the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF), few eligible patients are screened. We set out to study the barriers to LCS by surveying primary care physicians (PCPs).MethodsWe surveyed a randomly selected sample of 1384 eligible PCPs between January and October 2015, using the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile, though surveys sent by mail, fax, and e-mail. The survey included questions regarding knowledge of LCS guidelines, utilization of LCS over the prior 12 months, and perceptions of barriers to LCS. Training background, years in practice, practice type, and demographics were also collected.ResultsThe survey response rate was 18%. Responders and nonresponders did not differ by practice or demographic characteristics. Of the respondents, 47% indicated that LCS was recommended by the USPSTF, 52% had referred at least one patient for LDCT, and 12% had referred at least one patient to a LCS program over the prior 12 months. Perceived barriers to LCS included uncertainty regarding ther benefit of LCS, concern regarding insurance coverage, and the harm of LCS.ConclusionsAlthough LCS is recommended by the USPSTF, LDCT is utilized in a minority of eligible patients, as reported by surveyed PCPs. Approximately half of PCPs are familiar with USPSTF recommendations for LCS and a number of physician barriers to adherence to guidelines exist. Additional study of physician- and system-based interventions to improve adherence to LCS recommendations is needed.
| S-EPMC5075492 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe importance of identifying chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at an early stage is recognised. Improved and easily accessible identification of individuals at risk of COPD in primary care is needed to select patients for spirometry more accurately.AimsTo explore whether use of a mini-spirometer can predict a diagnosis of COPD in patients at risk of COPD in primary care, and to assess its cost-effectiveness in detecting patients with COPD.MethodsPrimary care patients aged 45-85 years with a smoking history of >15 pack-years were selected. Data were collected on the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ), Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnoea scale and smoking habits. Lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 and 6 s; FEV1 and FEV6, respectively) was measured by mini-spirometer (copd-6), followed by diagnostic standard spirometry (COPD diagnosis post-bronchodilation ratio of FEV1 to forced vital capacity (FVC) <0.7). Time consumed was recorded. Univariate logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used.ResultsA total of 305 patients (57% females) of mean (SD) age 61.2 (8.4) years, mean (SD) total CCQ 1.0 (0.8) and mean (SD) MRC 0.8 (0.8) were recruited from 21 centres. COPD was diagnosed in 77 patients (25.2%) by standard diagnostic spirometry. Using the copd-6 device, mean (SD) FEV1/FEV6 was 68 (8)% in patients with COPD and 78 (10)% in patients without COPD. Sensitivity and specificity at a FEV1/FEV6 cut-off of 73% were 79.2% and 80.3%, respectively. The area under the ROC curve was 0.84. Screening with the copd-6 device significantly predicted COPD. Gender, CCQ, and MRC were not found to predict COPD.ConclusionsUsing the copd-6 as a pre-screening device, the rate of COPD diagnoses by standard diagnostic spirometry increased from 25.2% to 79.2%. Although the sensitivity and specificity of the copd-6 could be improved, it might be an important device for prescreening of COPD in primary care and may reduce the number of unnecessary spirometric tests performed.
| S-EPMC6548026 | biostudies-literature