Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25358021›Full record

ArticleNPJ primary care respiratory medicine2014

Assessment of five different guideline indication criteria for spirometry, including modified GOLD criteria, in order to detect COPD: data from 5,315 subjects in the PLATINO study.

Ana P Luize, Ana Maria B Menezes, Rogelio Perez-Padilla, Adriana Muiño, Maria Victorina López, Gonzalo Valdivia, Carmem Lisboa, Maria Montes de Oca, Carlos Tálamo, Bartolomé Celli and 4 more

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ primary care respiratory medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Ana P LuizeRespiratory Division, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Ana Maria B MenezesEpidemiology Division, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil.
Rogelio Perez-PadillaRespiratory Division, Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias, Mexico City, Mexico.
Adriana MuiñoRespiratory Division, Universidad de la República, Montevideo, Uruguay.
Maria Victorina LópezRespiratory Division, Universidad de la República, Montevideo, Uruguay.
Gonzalo ValdiviaRespiratory Division, Pontifícia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Carmem LisboaRespiratory Division, Pontifícia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Maria Montes de OcaRespiratory Division, Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas, Venezuela.
Carlos TálamoRespiratory Division, Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas, Venezuela.
Bartolomé CelliBrighans Women´s Hospital, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA.
Oliver A NascimentoRespiratory Division, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Mariana R GazzottiRespiratory Division, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
José R JardimRespiratory Division, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
PLATINO Team

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSpirometry is the gold standard for diagnosing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Although there are a number of different guideline criteria for deciding who should be selected for spirometric screening, to date it is not known which criteria are the best based on sensitivity and specificity.

aimsFirstly, to evaluate the proportion of subjects in the PLATINO Study that would be recommended for spirometry testing according to Global initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD)-modified, American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), National Lung Health Education Program (NLHEP), GOLD and American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society (ATS/ERS) criteria. Secondly, we aimed to compare the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive and negative predictive values, of these five different criteria.

methodsData from the PLATINO study included information on respiratory symptoms, smoking and previous spirometry testing. The GOLD-modified spirometry indication criteria are based on three positive answers out of five questions: the presence of cough, phlegm in the morning, dyspnoea, age over 40 years and smoking status.

resultsData from 5,315 subjects were reviewed. Fewer people had an indication for spirometry (41.3%) according to the GOLD-modified criteria, and more people had an indication for spirometry (80.4%) by the GOLD and ATS/ERS criteria. A low percentage had previously had spirometry performed: GOLD-modified (14.5%); ACCP (13.2%); NLHEP (12.6%); and GOLD and ATS/ERS (12.3%). The GOLD-modified criteria showed the least sensitivity (54.9) and the highest specificity (61.0) for detecting COPD, whereas GOLD and ATS/ERS criteria showed the highest sensitivity (87.9) and the least specificity (20.8).

conclusionThere is a considerable difference in the indication for spirometry according to the five different guideline criteria. The GOLD-modified criteria recruit less people with the greatest sum of sensitivity and specificity.

Indexed as

FemaleHumansLatin AmericaMaleMiddle AgedPractice Guidelines as TopicPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveSensitivity and SpecificitySpirometry

Identifiers

PMID25358021
PMCPMC4373468

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.