» Articles » PMID: 37065634

Comparing the Performance of Two Screening Questionnaires for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in the Chinese General Population

Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: Screening questionnaires can help identify individuals at a high risk of COPD. This study aimed to compare the performance of the COPD population screener (COPD-PS) and COPD screening questionnaire (COPD-SQ) on the general population as a full cohort and stratified by urbanization.

Methods: We recruited subjects who underwent a health checkup at urban and rural community health centers in Beijing. All eligible subjects completed the COPD-PS and COPD-SQ, then spirometry. Spirometry-defined COPD was defined as a post-bronchodilator FEV/FVC<70%. Symptomatic COPD was defined as a post-bronchodilator FEV/FVC<70% and respiratory symptoms. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis compared the discriminatory power of the two questionnaires, and stratified by urbanization.

Results: We identified 129 spirometry-defined and 92 symptomatic COPD cases out of 1350 enrolled subjects. The optimal cut-off score for the COPD-PS was 4 for spirometry-defined and 5 for symptomatic COPD. The optimum cut-off score for the COPD-SQ was 15 for both spirometry-defined and symptomatic COPD. The COPD-PS and COPD-SQ had similar AUC values for spirometry-defined (0.672 vs 0.702) and symptomatic COPD (0.734 vs 0.779). The AUC of the COPD-SQ tended to be higher in rural areas than that of the COPD-PS for spirometry-defined COPD (0.700 vs 0.653, = 0.093).

Conclusion: The COPD-PS and COPD-SQ had comparable discriminatory power for detecting COPD in the general population while the COPD-SQ performed better in rural areas. A pilot study for validating and comparing the diagnostic accuracy of different questionnaires is required when screening for COPD in a new environment.

Citing Articles

Cost-effectiveness of population-based screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in China: a simulation modeling study.

Chen Q, Fan Y, Huang K, Li W, Geldsetzer P, Barnighausen T Lancet Reg Health West Pac. 2024; 46:101065.

PMID: 38721063 PMC: 11077022. DOI: 10.1016/j.lanwpc.2024.101065.


Screening performance of COPD-PS scale, COPD-SQ scale, peak expiratory flow, and their combinations for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the primary healthcare in Haicang District, Xiamen City.

Shen X, Yang H, Lan C, Tang F, Lin Q, Chen Y Front Med (Lausanne). 2024; 11:1357077.

PMID: 38654837 PMC: 11035724. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1357077.

References
1.
Pan Z, Dickens A, Chi C, Kong X, Enocson A, Cooper B . Accuracy and cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies for identifying undiagnosed COPD among primary care patients (≥40 years) in China: a cross-sectional screening test accuracy study: findings from the Breathe Well group. BMJ Open. 2021; 11(9):e051811. PMC: 8461701. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051811. View

2.
Wu Y, Zhang S, Zhuo B, Cai M, Qian Z, Vaughn M . Global burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease attributable to ambient particulate matter pollution and household air pollution from solid fuels from 1990 to 2019. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2022; 29(22):32788-32799. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-17732-8. View

3.
Zhou Y, Chen S, Tian J, Cui J, Li X, Hong W . Development and validation of a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease screening questionnaire in China. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2013; 17(12):1645-51. DOI: 10.5588/ijtld.12.0995. View

4.
Gu Y, Zhang Y, Wen Q, Ouyang Y, Shen Y, Yu H . Performance of COPD population screener questionnaire in COPD screening: a validation study and meta-analysis. Ann Med. 2021; 53(1):1198-1206. PMC: 8293944. DOI: 10.1080/07853890.2021.1949486. View

5.
Mangione C, Barry M, Nicholson W, Cabana M, Caughey A, Chelmow D . Screening for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: US Preventive Services Task Force Reaffirmation Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2022; 327(18):1806-1811. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2022.5692. View