| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Sator, Lea, et al.
(författare)
-
Overdiagnosis of COPD in Subjects With Unobstructed Spirometry A BOLD Analysis
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Chest. - : Elsevier BV. - 0012-3692 .- 1931-3543. ; 156:2, s. 277-288
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: There are several reports on underdiagnosis of COPD, while little is known about COPD overdiagnosis and overtreatment. We describe the overdiagnosis and the prevalence of spirometrically defined false positive COPD, as well as their relationship with overtreatment across 23 population samples in 20 countries participating in the BOLD Study between 2003 and 2012.METHODS: A false positive diagnosis of COPD was considered when participants reported a doctor's diagnosis of COPD, but postbronchodilator spirometry was unobstructed (FEV1/FVC > LLN). Additional analyses were performed using the fixed ratio criterion (FEV1/FVC < 0.7).RESULTS: Among 16,177 participants, 919 (5.7%) reported a previous medical diagnosis of COPD. Postbronchodilator spirometry was unobstructed in 569 subjects (61.9%): false positive COPD. A similar rate of overdiagnosis was seen when using the fixed ratio criterion (55.3%). In a subgroup analysis excluding participants who reported a diagnosis of "chronic bronchitis" or "emphysema" (n = 220), 37.7% had no airflow limitation. The site-specific prevalence of false positive COPD varied greatly, from 1.9% in low- to middle-income countries to 4.9% in high-income countries. In multivariate analysis, overdiagnosis was more common among women, and was associated with higher education; former and current smoking; the presence of wheeze, cough, and phlegm; and concomitant medical diagnosis of asthma or heart disease. Among the subjects with false positive COPD, 45.7% reported current use of respiratory medication. Excluding patients with reported asthma, 34.4% of those with normal spirometry still used a respiratory medication.CONCLUSIONS: False positive COPD is frequent. This might expose nonobstructed subjects to possible adverse effects of respiratory medication.
|
|
| 3. |
- Studnicka, Michael, et al.
(författare)
-
COPD : Should Diagnosis Match Physiology?
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Chest. - : Elsevier BV. - 0012-3692 .- 1931-3543. ; 157:2, s. 473-475
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Soares, J. B., et al.
(författare)
-
Interobserver agreement of EUS elastography in the evaluation of solid pancreatic lesions
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Endoscopic Ultrasound. - : Medknow. - 2303-9027. ; 4:3, s. 244-249
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background and Objectives: Previous reports assessing the reproducibility of endoscopic ultrasound elastography (EUS-E) in evaluation of solid pancreatic lesions (SPL) involved only experienced endosonographers. We aimed to assess the interobserver agreement (IOA) of EUS-E in the evaluation of SPL by endoscopists with different levels of experience in EUS and EUS-E. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional observational multicenter study was designed and included 11 endoscopists who were divided into four groups: Group A (long experience in EUS and EUS-E); Group B (short experience in EUS and EUS-E); Group C (long experience in EUS and no experience in EUS-E); and Group D (no experience in EUS or EUS-E). The observers independently classified the patterns of 60 video sequences of EUS-E, after a 20-min training session. For each group, we calculated IOA (kappa statistic, k) of EUS-E and the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-E for pancreatic malignancy, by comparing the pattern of EUS-E indicative of malignancy (heterogeneous or homogenous blue) with the final diagnosis. Results: The overall IOA was moderate (k = 0.42; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33-0.52). The IOA of Group A (k = 0.80; 95% CI 0.65-1.00) was significantly higher than that of Groups B (k = 0.54; 95% CI 0.40-0.71), C (k = 0.54; 95% CI 0.39-0.68), and D (k = 0.28; 95% CI 0.14-0.40). IOA of Groups B and C was not significantly different, but it was significantly higher than that of Group D. The diagnostic accuracy of Group A (area under the curve under summary receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) = 0.83; 95% CI 0.75-0.90) was not significantly different from that of Group B (AUROC = 0.77; 95% CI 0.71-0.83), but it was significantly higher than that of Groups C (AUROC = 0.74; 95% CI 0.67-0.81) and D (AUROC = 0.74; 95% CI 0.67-0.81). No significant difference was seen between Groups B, C, and D for diagnostic accuracy. Conclusion: EUS-E is reproducible in the evaluation of SPL, even between endoscopists with no or limited experience in EUS and/or EUS-E. Reproducibility and diagnostic accuracy increase with experience in EUS and EUS-E.
|
|
