ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2026
Comparing the accuracy of CDQ, CAPTURE, LFQ, COPD-PS, COPD-SQ and SCSQ questionnaires for COPD screening in a hospital-facilitated community screening Iranian population.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a major cause of mortality, with underdiagnosis being a significant global issue. While spirometry is the diagnostic gold standard, it is impractical for widespread screening. This necessitates the use of validated questionnaires for initial risk stratification, though their performance varies across populations.
objectiveTo compare the diagnostic accuracy of six COPD screening questionnaires (CDQ, CAPTURE, LFQ, COPD-PS, COPD-SQ, and SCSQ) against post-bronchodilator spirometry in a hospital-facilitated community screening Iranian population.
methodsA hospital-facilitated community screening cross-sectional study was conducted on 294 patients aged ≥ 40 years recruited from primary care settings. All participants completed the six questionnaires and underwent spirometry. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and cut-off points that yielded the best balance in our cohort were calculated for each questionnaire, using a post-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC < 0.70 as the gold standard for COPD diagnosis.
resultsThe prevalence of spirometry-confirmed COPD was 20.4%. All questionnaires showed strong negative correlations with FEV1/FVC ratios (ρ range: -0.58 to -0.70; p < 0.001). The LFQ demonstrated the highest overall accuracy (AUC = 0.768), followed by the SCSQ (AUC = 0.766) and COPD-PS (AUC = 0.755). At established screening cut-offs, all tools showed high sensitivity (89.7% to 96.7%) for ruling out disease, albeit with low specificity (22.2% to 28.9%). A significant difference in AUC values was found between the questionnaires (χ² [5] = 35.16, p < 0.0001).
conclusionThe LFQ, SCSQ, and COPD-PS questionnaires demonstrated the highest diagnostic accuracy for COPD screening in this hospital-facilitated community screening cohort. Their high sensitivity shows potential as effective "rule-out" instruments for identifying high-risk individuals in primary care settings who should be referred for confirmatory spirometry. Future validation in a pure primary care setting is recommended.
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.