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

Authors:
Open Access
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the screening performance of COPD-PS questionnaire, COPD-SQ questionnaire, peak expiratory flow (PEF), COPD-PS questionnaire combined with PEF, and COPD-SQ questionnaire combined with PEF for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).Methods: This was a cross-sectional study. We distributed self-designed surveys and COPD screening scales (COPD-PS questionnaire and COPD-SQ questionnaire) to residents who underwent physical examination in five community health centers in Haicang District, Xiamen City, from February 2023 to May 2023, and measured their lung function and PEF with a portable device. We used logistic regression to obtain the coefficients of COPD-PS questionnaire, COPD-SQ questionnaire, and PEF, and plotted the receiver operating characteristic curves of each tool for diagnosing COPD and moderate-to-severe COPD. We evaluated and compared the optimal cut-off points and scores of sensitivity, specificity, Youden index, and area under the curve (AUC) values, and assessed the screening efficiency of different methods.Results: Of the 3,537 residents who completed the COPD-SQ questionnaire, COPD-PS questionnaire, and spirometry, 840 were diagnosed with COPD. We obtained the coefficients of COPD-PS questionnaire combined with peak expiratory flow (PEF), and COPD-SQ questionnaire combined with PEF, by logistic regression as −0.479-0.358 × PEF +0.321 × COPD-PS score and − 1.286-0.315 × PEF +0.125 × COPD-SQ score, respectively. The sensitivity of diagnosing COPD by COPD-SQ questionnaire, COPD-PS questionnaire, PEF, COPD-PS questionnaire combined with PEF, and COPD-SQ questionnaire combined with PEF were 0.439, 0.586, 0.519, 0.586, 0.612 respectively, and the specificity were 0.725, 0.621, 0.688, 0.689, 0.663 respectively, with ROC values of 0.606 (95%CI: 0.586–0.626), 0.640 (0.619–0.661), 0.641 (0.619–0.663), 0.678 (0.657–0.699), 0.685 (0.664–0.706) respectively. The sensitivity of diagnosing GOLD II and above by COPD-SQ questionnaire, COPD-PS questionnaire, PEF, COPD-PS questionnaire combined with PEF, and COPD-SQ questionnaire combined with PEF were 0.489, 0.620, 0.665, 0.630, 0.781 respectively, and the specificity were 0.714, 0.603, 0.700, 0.811, 0.629 respectively, with ROC values of 0.631 (95%CI: 0.606–0.655), 0.653 (0.626–0.679), 0.753 (0.730–0.777), 0.784 (0.762–0.806), 0.766 (0.744–0.789) respectively.Conclusion: Our study found that the accuracy of COPD screening by COPD-SQ questionnaire and COPD-PS questionnaire can be improved by combining the results of PEF. The screening performance of COPD-SQ questionnaire combined with PEF is relatively better. In future research, further studies are needed to optimize the performance of screening tools and understand whether their use will affect clinical outcomes.

This publication has 22 references indexed in Scilit: