Zhongguo quanke yixue (Dec 2022)
Diagnostic Accuracy of Screening Tools for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: a Network Meta-analysis
Abstract
Background Inexpensive and convenient early screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is of great significance to identify individuals at high risk of COPD. There are many kinds of COPD screening tools with various diagnostic accuracies, but which one is superior to others has not been identified by evidence-based studies. Objective To evaluate the diagnostic accuracies of common COPD screening tools using a network meta-analysis. Methods PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data and VIP databases were searched for diagnostic studies related to COPD screening and tools for early diagnosis COPD included from database establishment to December 31, 2021. Two researchers independently conducted literature screening, quality evaluation and data extraction. Meta-disc 1.4 and Stata 15.0 were used for network meta-analysis. Results A total of 46 studies were enrolled, involving seven screening tools: the Lung Function Questionnaire (IFQ) , COPD Diagnostic Questionnaire (CDQ) , COPD Screening Questionnaire (COPD-SQ) , Self-Scored COPD Population Screener Questionnaire (COPD-PS) , spirometer, peak flow meter, questionnaire+peak flow meter. The results of meta-analysis demonstrated combined sensitivity values of the aforementioned seven screening tools for COPD were as follows: 0.79〔95%CI (0.75, 0.83) 〕, 0.85〔95%CI (0.83, 0.86) 〕, 0.68〔95%CI (0.65, 0.70) 〕, 0.60〔95%CI (0.56, 0.63) 〕, 0.58〔95%CI (0.54, 0.61) 〕, 0.86〔95%CI (0.84, 0.88) 〕, and 0.68〔95%CI (0.65, 0.71) 〕. And combined specificity values of them were: 0.67〔95%CI (0.65, 0.68) 〕, 0.59〔95%CI (0.58, 0.59) 〕, 0.81〔95%CI (0.80, 0.82) 〕, 0.84〔95%CI (0.83, 0.85) 〕, 0.88〔95%CI (0.87, 0.89) 〕, 0.86〔95%CI (0.84, 0.88) 〕, and 0.85〔95%CI (0.84, 0.86) 〕. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values of the tools ranked in terms of combined sensitivity from highest to lowest were: peak flow meter (72.7%) >CDQ (70.1%) >LFQ (61.8%) >questionnaire+peak flow meter (45.3%) >COPD-SQ (28.5%) >COPD-PS (13.2%) >spirometer (9.1%) . And the SUCRA values of these tools ranked in terms of combined specificity from highest to lowest were: spirometer (76.8%) >questionnaire+peak flow meter (66.7%) >COPD-SQ (46.7%) >peak flow meter (45.8%) >COPD-PS (39.2%) >LFQ (11.9%) >CDQ (8.2%) . Conclusion Among the seven commonly used tools, peak flow meter has higher sensitivity, and spirometer has higher specificity. But this conclusion still needs to be further confirmed by more multicenter, large-sample studies.
Keywords
