CAD-Q (COPD-Asthma Differentiation Questionnaire): Performance of a new diagnostic score to differentiate between COPD and asthma in adults

CAD-Q(慢性阻塞性肺疾病-哮喘鉴别问卷):一种用于鉴别成人慢性阻塞性肺疾病和哮喘的新型诊断评分系统的性能

阅读:1

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma are the two most prevalent chronic respiratory diseases, significantly impacting public health. Utilizing clinical questionnaires to identify and differentiate patients with COPD and asthma for further diagnostic procedures has emerged as an effective strategy to address this issue. We developed a new diagnostic tool, the COPD-Asthma Differentiation Questionnaire (CAD-Q), to differentiate between COPD and asthma in adults. METHODS: A cross-sectional study with diagnostic test analysis was done. Relevant clinical variables for diagnosing COPD and asthma were identified through crude Odds Ratios (OR) and a logistic regression model provided adjusted ORs. The CAD-Q, including sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios, and ROC-curve, was compared to the LFQ, CDQ, PUMA, "Could it be COPD," and COPD-PS questionnaires. RESULTS: 235 (52.9%) patients had COPD and 209 (47.1%) had asthma. A score ≥ 20 on the CAD-Q questionnaire showed a ROC-curve of 70% (95% CI: 65-75; p < 0.001) with a sensitivity of 83.8% (95% CI: 81.1-86.6), specificity of 47.8% (95% CI: 44.1-51.6), positive predictive value of 37.8% (95% CI: 34.2-41.5), negative predictive value of 88.7% (95% CI: 86.3-91), LR + of 1.61 (95% CI: 1.447-1.786), LR - of 0.34 (95% CI: 0.304-0.376) for diagnosing COPD. When comparing CAD-Q with other questionnaires for differentiating COPD and asthma, CAD-Q and CDQ had the highest sensitivity (83.8% and 77.9%). PUMA and "Could it be COPD" had the highest specificity (62.7% and 62.6%). CAD-Q and COPD-PS showed the highest negative predictive values (88.7% and 62.1%). CAD-Q, LFQ, and CDQ had the highest a ROC-curve (70%, 66%, and 66%). CONCLUSION: The CAD-Q questionnaire effectively discriminated between COPD and asthma, outperforming previous tools. These findings support further research and refinement of diagnostic tools and call for validation in diverse clinical settings.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。