ArticlePloS one2025
Use of a single case-finding questionnaire to simultaneously target multiple related diseases allows enhanced disease detection.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop a research methodology to apply a single case-finding tool to multiple related diseases and to evaluate the ability of a single tool to detect two or more related chronic diseases.
methodsA case-finding study to detect two related respiratory diseases is used to demonstrate and explain the proposed methodology. Adults in the community with no prior history of physician-diagnosed lung disease who self-reported respiratory symptoms were contacted via random-digit dialing. Multiple risk scores, one for asthma and one for COPD, were developed using data from a single case-finding questionnaire administered to the study population. Each score was statistically optimized for targeted detection of cases having one disease in the class. External validation of tandem risk scores was prospectively conducted in an independent sample and predictive performance re-evaluated.
resultsSensitivity for detection of asthma improved from 87% using single risk scores to 96% using tandem risk scores, and sensitivity for detection of COPD similarly improved from 87% to 99%. In the independent validation cohort, case-finding sensitivities increased from 64% and 59% using single risk scores to 95% and 96% using tandem risk scores for asthma and for COPD, respectively.
conclusionsUse of a single questionnaire which incorporates risk scores for multiple diseases considered in tandem, rather than individually, enhances the yield of cases detected when compared with one-at-a-time application of risk scores for case discovery. Benefits include greater efficiency in case-finding and improved sensitivities for detection of each disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.