The sensitivity and specificity of spirometry as a screening method in COPD
Abstract
The data on COPD spread in various regions are extremely inconsistent. One of", the most accessible methods to define the COPD prevalence is screening. Spirometry is a gold standard for COPD detection. The purpose of the present research was to study sensitivity and specificity of spirometry in diagnosing COPD. We examined 3 129 persons aged 17 to 80 yrs. (1 867 males and 1 262 females), pensioners and workers of various enterprises at the Kemerovo city. A great number of persons with reduced respiratory function parameters were found during the screening. After more detailed examination the diagnosis of COPD was verified in 5.4 % of the males and 1.1 % of the females. The disease was detected more often in drivers, railway workers and healthcare workers. According to the screening results the most sensitive diagnostic criterion was FEV1 < 80 % and the most specific parameter was FEV1 / FVC < 70 %. Being highly specific PEF < 80 % had low sensitivity. The increase in PEF higher than 90 °%o enhanced its sensitivity up to 88.6 % and its drop less than 70 % augmented its specificity up to 95.5 %o. The results allow to recommend the PEF < 70 % parameter as a diagnostic criterion of COPD in everyday outpatient work and PEF < 90 % as an indication for more detailed examination.
About the Authors
E. A. VostrikovaRussian Federation
Competing Interests:
No
L. O. Bagrova
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
No
A. G. Osipov
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
No
I. T. Vetlugaeva
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
No
A. V. Tikhonova
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
No
T. Yu. Gracheva
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
No
A. K. Strelis
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
No
References
1. Хронические обструктивные болезни легких: Практическое руководство для врачей. М.; 2004. 9.
2. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD). National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Publication № 2701, April 2001.
3. Чучалин А.Г. Белая книга Пульмонология. Россия 2003. М.; 2003. 47.
4. Игнатова Г.Л., Степанищева Л.А., Микрюкова Ю.А. и др. Распространенность ХОБЛ на крупном промышленном предприятии (Челябинском тракторном заводе). Атмосфера. Пульмонол. и аллергол. 2003; 3: 29-31.
5. Терещенко Ю.А., Кан И.Н. Распространенность ХОБЛ среди работников горно-химического комбината и эффективность лечебно-профилактических мероприятий. Атмосфера. Пульмонол. и аллергол. 2003; 2: 37-39.
6. Флетчер Р., Флетчер С., Вагнер Э. Клиническая эпидемиология: Пер. с англ. М.: Медиа Сфера; 1998.
7. Шмелев Е.И. ХОБЛ: ключевые проблемы. Атмосфера. Пульмонол. и аллергол. 2003; 2: 5-9.
8. Михайлуц А.П., Зайцев В.И., Иванов С.В., Зубицкий Б.Д. Эколого-гигиенические проблемы городов с развитой химической промышленностью. Новосибирск; 1997. 5-16.
9. MRS Committee on the aetiology of chronic bronchitis. Lancet 1965; 1: 775-789.
Review
For citations:
Vostrikova E.A., Bagrova L.O., Osipov A.G., Vetlugaeva I.T., Tikhonova A.V., Gracheva T.Yu., Strelis A.K. The sensitivity and specificity of spirometry as a screening method in COPD. PULMONOLOGIYA. 2004;(5):45-50. (In Russ.)