Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

dc.contributor.authorRepresas Represas, Cristina 
dc.contributor.authorFernández Villar, José Alberto 
dc.contributor.authorRuano Raviña, Alberto
dc.contributor.authorPriegue Carrera, Ana
dc.contributor.authorBotana Rial, María Isabel 
dc.date.accessioned2017-10-16T08:57:29Z
dc.date.available2017-10-16T08:57:29Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.otherhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26726887es
dc.identifier.otherhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4699810/es
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11940/9781
dc.description.abstractThe underdiagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) could be improved through screening using portable devices simpler than conventional spirometers in specific healthcare settings to reach a higher percentage of the at-risk population. This study was designed to assess the validity and reliability of the COPD-6 portable device to screen for COPD in non-specialized healthcare settings. Prospective cohort study to validate a diagnostic test. Three cohorts were recruited: primary care (PC), emergency services (ES) and community pharmacies (CPh). individuals with risk factors for COPD (>40 years, smoking >10 pack-years, with respiratory symptoms). The values measured using the COPD-6 were FEV1, FEV6 and the FEV1/FEV6 ratio. Subsequently, participants underwent conventional spirometry at hospital, using a post-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC value <0.7 as the gold standard criterion for the COPD diagnosis. 437 participants were included, 362 were valid for the analysis. COPD was diagnosed in 114 patients (31.5%). The area under the ROC curve for the COPD-6 for COPD screening was 0.8.The best cut-off point for the FEV1/FEV6 ratio was 0.8 (sensitivity, 92.1%) using spirometry with the bronchodilator test as the gold standard. There were practically no differences in the COPD-6 performance in the different settings and also regarding age, gender and smoking status. The COPD-6 device is a valid tool for COPD screening in non-specialized healthcare settings. In this context, the best cut-off point for the FEV1/FEV6 ratio is 0.8.es
dc.description.sponsorshipFundación de la Sociedad Gallega de Patología Respiratoria (SOGAPAR)es
dc.description.sponsorshipEuropean Union Seventh Framework Programme [FP7/REGPOT-2012-2013.1] under grant agreement n° 316265, BIOCAPSes
dc.language.isoenges
dc.rightsAtribución 4.0 Internacional*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/*
dc.subject.meshSmoking*
dc.subject.meshPulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive*
dc.titleScreening for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Validity and Reliability of a Portable Device in Non-Specialized Healthcare Settings.es
dc.typeArtigoes
dc.contributor.authorcorpStudy group of Validity of COPD-6 in nonspecialized healthcare settings
dc.identifier.doi10.1371/journal.pone.0145571
dc.identifier.essn1932-6203
dc.identifier.pmid26726887
dc.issue.number1es
dc.journal.titlePloS onees
dc.organizationServizo Galego de Saúde::Estrutura de Xestión Integrada (EOXI)::EOXI de Vigo - Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Vigo::Neumoloxíaes
dc.page.initiale0145571es
dc.relation.projectIDinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/FP7/316265es
dc.relation.publisherversionhttp://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0145571&type=printablees
dc.rights.accessRightsopenAccesses
dc.subject.decsenfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica*
dc.subject.decshábito de fumar*
dc.subject.keywordenfermedad pulmonar obstructiva cronicaes
dc.subject.keywordEPOCes
dc.twitterfalseen
dc.typefidesArtigo Científico (inclue Orixinal, Orixinal breve, Revisión Sistemática e Meta-análisis)es
dc.typesophosArtículo Originales
dc.volume.number11es


Ficheros en el ítem

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

Atribución 4.0 Internacional
Excepto si se señala otra cosa, la licencia del ítem se describe como Atribución 4.0 Internacional