两个瑞典队列的比较表明,COPD的肺量测定诊断正在增加。

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q1 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine Pub Date : 2023-06-02 DOI:10.1038/s41533-023-00345-8
Åsa Athlin, Karin Lisspers, Mikael Hasselgren, Björn Ställberg, Christer Janson, Scott Montgomery, Maaike Giezeman, Marta Kisiel, Anna Nager, Hanna Sandelowsky, Mats Arne, Josefin Sundh
{"title":"两个瑞典队列的比较表明,COPD的肺量测定诊断正在增加。","authors":"Åsa Athlin,&nbsp;Karin Lisspers,&nbsp;Mikael Hasselgren,&nbsp;Björn Ställberg,&nbsp;Christer Janson,&nbsp;Scott Montgomery,&nbsp;Maaike Giezeman,&nbsp;Marta Kisiel,&nbsp;Anna Nager,&nbsp;Hanna Sandelowsky,&nbsp;Mats Arne,&nbsp;Josefin Sundh","doi":"10.1038/s41533-023-00345-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Spirometry should be used to confirm a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This test is not always performed, leading to possible misdiagnosis. We investigated whether the proportion of patients with diagnostic spirometry has increased over time as well as factors associated with omitted or incorrectly interpreted spirometry. Data from medical reviews and a questionnaire from primary and secondary care patients with a doctors' diagnosis of COPD between 2004 and 2010 were collected. Data were compared with a COPD cohort diagnosed between 2000 and 2003. Among 703 patients with a first diagnosis of COPD between 2004 and 2010, 88% had a diagnostic spirometry, compared with 59% (p < 0.001) in the previous cohort. Factors associated with not having diagnostic spirometry were current smoking (OR 2.21; 95% CI 1.36-3.60), low educational level (OR 1.81; 1.09-3.02) and management in primary care (OR 2.28; 1.02-5.14). The correct interpretation of spirometry results increased (75% vs 82%; p = 0.010). Among patients with a repeated spirometry, 94% had a persistent FEV<sub>1</sub>/FVC or FEV<sub>1</sub>/VC ratio <0.70.</p>","PeriodicalId":19470,"journal":{"name":"NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine","volume":"33 1","pages":"23"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10235108/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic spirometry in COPD is increasing, a comparison of two Swedish cohorts.\",\"authors\":\"Åsa Athlin,&nbsp;Karin Lisspers,&nbsp;Mikael Hasselgren,&nbsp;Björn Ställberg,&nbsp;Christer Janson,&nbsp;Scott Montgomery,&nbsp;Maaike Giezeman,&nbsp;Marta Kisiel,&nbsp;Anna Nager,&nbsp;Hanna Sandelowsky,&nbsp;Mats Arne,&nbsp;Josefin Sundh\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41533-023-00345-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Spirometry should be used to confirm a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This test is not always performed, leading to possible misdiagnosis. We investigated whether the proportion of patients with diagnostic spirometry has increased over time as well as factors associated with omitted or incorrectly interpreted spirometry. Data from medical reviews and a questionnaire from primary and secondary care patients with a doctors' diagnosis of COPD between 2004 and 2010 were collected. Data were compared with a COPD cohort diagnosed between 2000 and 2003. Among 703 patients with a first diagnosis of COPD between 2004 and 2010, 88% had a diagnostic spirometry, compared with 59% (p < 0.001) in the previous cohort. Factors associated with not having diagnostic spirometry were current smoking (OR 2.21; 95% CI 1.36-3.60), low educational level (OR 1.81; 1.09-3.02) and management in primary care (OR 2.28; 1.02-5.14). The correct interpretation of spirometry results increased (75% vs 82%; p = 0.010). Among patients with a repeated spirometry, 94% had a persistent FEV<sub>1</sub>/FVC or FEV<sub>1</sub>/VC ratio <0.70.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19470,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"23\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10235108/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41533-023-00345-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41533-023-00345-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

肺活量测定应用于确认慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)的诊断。这种测试并不总是进行,可能导致误诊。我们调查了诊断性肺活量测定的患者比例是否随着时间的推移而增加,以及与遗漏或错误解释肺活量测定相关的因素。收集了2004年至2010年间被医生诊断为慢性阻塞性肺病的初级和二级保健患者的医学综述和问卷调查数据。数据与2000年至2003年间诊断的COPD队列进行了比较。在2004年至2010年间首次诊断为COPD的703例患者中,88%的患者有诊断性肺活量测定法,相比之下,59% (p 1/FVC或FEV1/VC)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Diagnostic spirometry in COPD is increasing, a comparison of two Swedish cohorts.

Spirometry should be used to confirm a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This test is not always performed, leading to possible misdiagnosis. We investigated whether the proportion of patients with diagnostic spirometry has increased over time as well as factors associated with omitted or incorrectly interpreted spirometry. Data from medical reviews and a questionnaire from primary and secondary care patients with a doctors' diagnosis of COPD between 2004 and 2010 were collected. Data were compared with a COPD cohort diagnosed between 2000 and 2003. Among 703 patients with a first diagnosis of COPD between 2004 and 2010, 88% had a diagnostic spirometry, compared with 59% (p < 0.001) in the previous cohort. Factors associated with not having diagnostic spirometry were current smoking (OR 2.21; 95% CI 1.36-3.60), low educational level (OR 1.81; 1.09-3.02) and management in primary care (OR 2.28; 1.02-5.14). The correct interpretation of spirometry results increased (75% vs 82%; p = 0.010). Among patients with a repeated spirometry, 94% had a persistent FEV1/FVC or FEV1/VC ratio <0.70.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine
NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine PRIMARY HEALTH CARE-RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
6.50%
发文量
49
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine is an open access, online-only, multidisciplinary journal dedicated to publishing high-quality research in all areas of the primary care management of respiratory and respiratory-related allergic diseases. Papers published by the journal represent important advances of significance to specialists within the fields of primary care and respiratory medicine. We are particularly interested in receiving papers in relation to the following aspects of respiratory medicine, respiratory-related allergic diseases and tobacco control: epidemiology prevention clinical care service delivery and organisation of healthcare (including implementation science) global health.
期刊最新文献
Use and acceptability of an asthma diagnosis clinical decision support system for primary care clinicians: an observational mixed methods study. Best practice advice for asthma exacerbation prevention and management in primary care: an international expert consensus. Web-based pulmonary telehabilitation: a systematic review. Tackling antibiotic resistance-insights from eHealthResp's educational interventions. The Reliever Reliance Test: evaluating a new tool to address SABA over-reliance.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1