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, Karin Lisspers, Mikael Hasselgren, Björn Ställberg, Christer Janson, Scott Montgomery, Maaike Giezeman, Marta Kisiel, Anna Nager, Hanna Sandelowsky, Mats Arne, 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, Karin Lisspers, Mikael Hasselgren, Björn Ställberg, Christer Janson, Scott Montgomery, Maaike Giezeman, Marta Kisiel, Anna Nager, Hanna Sandelowsky, Mats Arne, 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}
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.
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.