Navigation überspringen
Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg
Status: Bibliographieeintrag

Verfügbarkeit
Standort: ---
Exemplare: ---
heiBIB
 Online-Ressource
Verfasst von:Schnieders, Elena [VerfasserIn]   i
 Uenal, Elyesa [VerfasserIn]   i
 Winkler, Volker [VerfasserIn]   i
 Dambach, Peter [VerfasserIn]   i
 Louis, Valérie R. [VerfasserIn]   i
 Horstick, Olaf [VerfasserIn]   i
 Neuhann, Florian [VerfasserIn]   i
 Deckert, Andreas [VerfasserIn]   i
Titel:Performance of alternative COPD case-finding tools
Titelzusatz:a systematic review and meta-analysis
Verf.angabe:Elena Schnieders, Elyesa Uenal, Volker Winkler, Peter Dambach, Valerie R. Louis, Olaf Horstick, Florian Neuhann and Andreas Deckert
E-Jahr:2021
Jahr:June 30, 2021
Umfang:14 S.
Fussnoten:Gesehen am 05.08.2021
Titel Quelle:Enthalten in: European respiratory review
Ort Quelle:Sheffield : Soc., 2005
Jahr Quelle:2021
Band/Heft Quelle:30(2021), 160, Artikel-ID 200350, Seite 1-14
ISSN Quelle:1600-0617
Abstract:Rationale Guidelines recommend pre-/post-bronchodilator spirometry for diagnosing COPD, but resource constraints limit the availability of spirometry in primary care in low- and middle-income countries. Although spirometry is the diagnostic gold standard, we shall assess alternative tools for settings without spirometry. Methods A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was conducted, utilising Cochrane, CINAHL, Google Scholar, PubMed and Web of Science (search cut-off was May 01, 2020). Published studies comparing the accuracy of diagnostic tools for COPD with post-bronchodilator spirometry were considered. Studies without sensitivity/specificity data, without a separate validation sample and outside of primary care were excluded. Sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve (AUC) were assessed. Results Of 7578 studies, 24 were included (14635 participants). Hand devices yielded a larger AUC than questionnaires. The meta-analysis included 17 studies and the overall AUC of micro-spirometers (0.84, 95% CI 0.80-0.89) was larger when compared to the COPD population screener (COPD-PS) questionnaire (0.77, 95% CI 0.63-0.85) and the COPD diagnostic questionnaire (CDQ) (0.72, 95% CI 0.64-0.78). However, only the difference between micro-spirometers and the CDQ was significant. Conclusions The CDQ and the COPD-PS questionnaire were approximately equally accurate tools. Questionnaires ensured testing of symptomatic patients, but micro-spirometers were more accurate. A combination could increase accuracy but was not evaluated in the meta-analysis.
DOI:doi:10.1183/16000617.0350-2020
URL:Bitte beachten Sie: Dies ist ein Bibliographieeintrag. Ein Volltextzugriff für Mitglieder der Universität besteht hier nur, falls für die entsprechende Zeitschrift/den entsprechenden Sammelband ein Abonnement besteht oder es sich um einen OpenAccess-Titel handelt.

Volltext: https://doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0350-2020
 Volltext: https://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=DynamicDOIArticle&SrcApp=WOS&KeyAID=10.1183%2 ...
 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0350-2020
Datenträger:Online-Ressource
Sprache:eng
Sach-SW:air-flow obstruction
 early-diagnosis
 external validation
 obstructive pulmonary-disease
 outcomes
 piko-6(r)
 population screener
 primary-care
 risk
 symptom-based questionnaire
K10plus-PPN:1765645956
Verknüpfungen:→ Zeitschrift

Permanenter Link auf diesen Titel (bookmarkfähig):  https://katalog.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/titel/68767363   QR-Code
zum Seitenanfang