Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 17, Issue 9, pp 684–688 | Cite as

Accuracy of history, wheezing, and forced expiratory time in the diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

  • Sharon E. Straus
  • Finlay A. McAlister
  • David L. Sackett
  • Jonathan J. Deeks
  • the CARE-COAD2 Group
Original Articles

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of the history and selected elements of the physical examination in the diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

DESIGN: Independent blind comparison of the standard clinical examination (evaluating the accuracy of history, wheezing, and forced expiratory time [FET]) with spirometry. The gold standard for diagnosis of COPD was a forced expiratory volume at 1 second (FEV1) below the fifth percentile (adjusted for patient height and age).

SETTING: Seven sites in 6 countries, including investigators from primary care and secondary care settings.

PARTICIPANTS: One hundred sixty-one consecutive patients with varying severity of disease (known COPD, suspected COPD, or no COPD) participated in the study.

MAIN RESULTS: One hundred sixty-one patients (mean age 65 years, 39% female, 41% with known COPD, 27% with suspected COPD, and 32% normal) were recruited. Mean (±SD) FEV1 and forced vital capacity were 1,720 (±830) mL and 2,520 (±970) mL. The likelihood ratios (LR) for the tested elements of the clinical examination (and their P values on x2 testing) were: self-reported history of COPD, 5.6 (P<.001); FET greater than 9 seconds, 6.7 (P<0.01); smoked longer than 40 pack years, 3.3 (P=.001); wheezing, 4.0 (P<.001); male gender, 1.6 (P<.001); and age over 65 years, 1.6 (P=.025). The accuracy of these elements was not appreciably different when reference standards other than FEV1 below the 5th percentile were applied. Only 3 elements of the clinical examination were significantly associated with the diagnosis of COPD on multivariate analysis: self-reported history of COPD (adjusted LR 4.4), wheezing (adjusted LR 2.9), and FET greater than 9 seconds (adjusted LR 4.6). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the model incorporating these 3 factors was 0.86.

CONCLUSIONS: Less emphasis should be placed on the presence of isolated symptoms or signs in the diagnosis of COPD. While numerous elements of the clinical examination are associated with the diagnosis of COPD, only 3 are significant on multivariate analysis. Patients having all 3 of these findings have an LR of 59 (ruling in COPD); those with none have an LR of 0.3 (ruling out COPD).

Key words

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease clinical examination spirometry diagnosis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    McAlister FA, Straus SE, Sackett DL, on behalf of the CARE-COAD1 Investigators. Why we need large, simple studies of the clinical examination: the problem and a proposed solution. Lancet. 1999;354:1853–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Holleman DR, Simel DL, Goldberg JS. Diagnosis of obstructive airways disease from the clinical examination. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8:63–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Holleman DR Jr., Simel DL. Does the clinical examination predict airflow limitation. JAMA. 1995;273:313–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Straus SE, McAlister FA, Sackett DL, Deeks J, on behalf of the CARE-COAD1 Investigators. The accuracy of the patient history, wheezing, and laryngeal measurements in diagnosing obstructive airways disease. JAMA. 2000;283:1853–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sapira JD. The Art and Science of Bedside Diagnosis. Munich: Urban and Schwarzenberg; 1990.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Holleman DR, Simel DL. Does the clinical examination predict airflow limitation. JAMA. 1995;273:313–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Badgett RG, Tanaka DJ, Hunt DK, et al. Can moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease be diagnosed by historical and physical findings alone. Am J Med. 1993;94:188–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schapira RM, Schapira MM, Funahashi A, McAuliffe TL, Varkey B. The value of the forced expiratory time in the physical diagnosis of obstructive airways disease. JAMA. 1993;270:731–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    American Thoracic Society. Lung function testing: selection of reference values and interpretative strategies. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1991;144:1202–18.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Crapo RO, Morris AH, Cardner RM. Reference spirometric values using techniques and equipment that meet ATS recommendations. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1981;23:659–64.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Feinstein AR. Clinical biostatistics XXXIX. The haze of Bayes, the aerial palaces of decision analysis, and the computerized Ouija board. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1977;21:482–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Spiegelhalter DJ, Knill-Jones RP. Statistical and knowledge-based approaches to clinical decision-support systems, with an application in gastroenterology. J R Statist Soc. 1984;147:35–77.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Straus SE, McAlister FA, Sackett DL, on behalf of the CARE group. Clinical assessment of the reliability of the examination (CARE). ACP J C. 2000;133:A11–12.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sharon E. Straus
    • 1
  • Finlay A. McAlister
    • 2
  • David L. Sackett
    • 3
  • Jonathan J. Deeks
    • 4
  • the CARE-COAD2 Group
  1. 1.Received from The Division of General Internal MedicineUniversity Health Network-Mount Sinai Hospital, University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.The Division of General Internal MedicineUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  3. 3.The Trout Research and Education Centre at Irish LakeInstitute of Health SciencesOxfordUnited Kingdom
  4. 4.The ICRF/NHS Centre for Statistics in MedicineInstitute of Health SciencesOxfordUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations