BACKGROUND: Multiple population-based and high-risk cohort studies use parental questionnaire responses to define allergic rhinitis (AR) in children. Individual questionnaire items have not been validated by comparison with physician-diagnosed AR (PDAR). OBJECTIVE: To identify routine clinical questions that best agree with a physician diagnosis of AR and can be used for early case identification. METHODS: Children participating in a longitudinal birth cohort study were evaluated at ages 1 through 4 and at age 7 (n = 531) using questionnaires, physical examinations, and skin prick tests (SPT) with 15 aeroallergens (AG). Parents answered 3 stem questions pertaining to their child, including presence of nasal symptoms absent a cold/flu (ISAAC-validated question), presence of hayfever, and ocular itch. Substem questions were answered with details regarding seasonality, nasal triggers, and ocular seasonality. A global assessment of allergic diseases, including AR, was performed by a specialty-trained clinician. Percent agreement, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values were assessed for individual stem and substem questions. RESULTS: Positive response to having hayfever and presence of ocular symptoms had the highest specificity (84% and 69%, respectively) and the highest percent agreement (74% and 68%) with PDAR. Identification of triggers for nasal and ocular symptoms had the highest sensitivity (89%). Positive predictive values ranged from 31 to 39%. Combining 2 responses with highest agreement increased specificity for PDAR to 91%. CONCLUSION: Responses to hayfever and ocular symptoms had better specificity and percent agreement with PDAR than the ISAAC-validated questionnaire item. Combining 2 rhinitis questions sharply increases specificity and may improve diagnostic accuracy of clinical questions.
BACKGROUND: Multiple population-based and high-risk cohort studies use parental questionnaire responses to define allergic rhinitis (AR) in children. Individual questionnaire items have not been validated by comparison with physician-diagnosed AR (PDAR). OBJECTIVE: To identify routine clinical questions that best agree with a physician diagnosis of AR and can be used for early case identification. METHODS:Children participating in a longitudinal birth cohort study were evaluated at ages 1 through 4 and at age 7 (n = 531) using questionnaires, physical examinations, and skin prick tests (SPT) with 15 aeroallergens (AG). Parents answered 3 stem questions pertaining to their child, including presence of nasal symptoms absent a cold/flu (ISAAC-validated question), presence of hayfever, and ocular itch. Substem questions were answered with details regarding seasonality, nasal triggers, and ocular seasonality. A global assessment of allergic diseases, including AR, was performed by a specialty-trained clinician. Percent agreement, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values were assessed for individual stem and substem questions. RESULTS: Positive response to having hayfever and presence of ocular symptoms had the highest specificity (84% and 69%, respectively) and the highest percent agreement (74% and 68%) with PDAR. Identification of triggers for nasal and ocular symptoms had the highest sensitivity (89%). Positive predictive values ranged from 31 to 39%. Combining 2 responses with highest agreement increased specificity for PDAR to 91%. CONCLUSION: Responses to hayfever and ocular symptoms had better specificity and percent agreement with PDAR than the ISAAC-validated questionnaire item. Combining 2 rhinitis questions sharply increases specificity and may improve diagnostic accuracy of clinical questions.
Authors: Dana V Wallace; Mark S Dykewicz; David I Bernstein; Joann Blessing-Moore; Linda Cox; David A Khan; David M Lang; Richard A Nicklas; John Oppenheimer; Jay M Portnoy; Christopher C Randolph; Diane Schuller; Sheldon L Spector; Stephen A Tilles Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Michael Schatz; Eli O Meltzer; Robert Nathan; M Jennifer Derebery; Matthew Mintz; Richard H Stanford; Anand A Dalal; Mary Jane Silvey; Mark Kosinski Journal: Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 6.347
Authors: M Herr; B Clarisse; L Nikasinovic; C Foucault; A-M Le Marec; J-P Giordanella; J Just; I Momas Journal: Allergy Date: 2010-08-30 Impact factor: 13.146
Authors: C M Jacinto; R P Nelson; G A Bucholtz; E Fernandez-Caldas; W L Trudeau; R F Lockey Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 1992-09 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: I Brockow; A Zutavern; U Hoffmann; A Grübl; A von Berg; S Koletzko; B Filipiak; C P Bauer; H E Wichmann; D Reinhardt; D Berdel; U Krämer; J Heinrich Journal: J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol Date: 2009 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Jane M Garbutt; Randall Sterkel; Kathy B Mullen; Bridget Conlon; Erin Leege; Gordon Bloomberg; Robert C Strunk Journal: Clin Pediatr (Phila) Date: 2014-05-06 Impact factor: 1.168
Authors: Isabel R V Hartwig; Christian A Bruenahl; Katherina Ramisch; Thomas Keil; Mark Inman; Petra C Arck; Maike Pincus Journal: J Mol Med (Berl) Date: 2014-06-03 Impact factor: 4.599
Authors: Ronaldo C Fabiano Filho; Ruth J Geller; Ludmilla Candido Santos; Janice A Espinola; Lacey B Robinson; Kohei Hasegawa; Carlos A Camargo Journal: Front Allergy Date: 2021-10-22