Letícia Fernandes Belo1, Antenor Rodrigues1,2, Thaís Paes1, Felipe Vilaça Cavallari Machado1, Lorena Paltanin Schneider1, Ana Paula Vicentin1, Vanessa Suziane Probst3, Fabio Pitta1, Nidia Aparecida Hernandes4. 1. Laboratory of Research in Respiratory Physiotherapy (LFIP), Department of Physiotherapy, State University of Londrina, Londrina, Brazil. 2. Faculty of Kinesiology and Rehabilitation Sciences, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Research Group for Rehabilitation in Internal Disorders, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 3. Department of Physiotherapy, State University of Londrina (UEL), Londrina, Brazil. 4. Laboratory of Research in Respiratory Physiotherapy (LFIP), Department of Physiotherapy, State University of Londrina, Londrina, Brazil. nyhernandes@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Whether the difference in the impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on the functional status of men and women stems from clinical distinctions or to the measuring instrument used is unclear. Like most instruments for assessing functional limitation in COPD, the interpretation of the results of the London Chest Activity of Daily Living (LCADL) scale is limited because a lack of a valid cutoff point to this scale. For that, this study sought to compare the functional status between men and women with COPD; and propose a cutoff point for LCADL capable of discriminating the prognosis of these individuals. METHODS: A sample of 138 subjects with moderate-severe COPD was evaluated by the LCADL. The percentage of the individual maximum score was used to obtain a cutoff point capable of discriminating patients with the worse prognosis according to the BODE Index. The cutoff point was also tested in an independent sample (n = 70). RESULTS: Regarding the total score, domestic and leisure domains of the LCADL, men had better scores than women (P ≤ 0.01). The cutoff point found was 37% (area under the curve = 0.70, 95% confidence interval = 0.60-0.80, sensitivity = 0.55 and specificity = 0.74). Individuals who scored ≥ 37% had a worse prognosis and level of physical activities of daily living than those who scored below (P ≤ 0.02). CONCLUSION: When evaluated by the LCADL, men and women with COPD present difference in the functional status. The established cutoff point (37%) adequately discriminates individuals regarding the prognosis, contributing to improve the interpretation capacity of the LCADL.
PURPOSE: Whether the difference in the impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on the functional status of men and women stems from clinical distinctions or to the measuring instrument used is unclear. Like most instruments for assessing functional limitation in COPD, the interpretation of the results of the London Chest Activity of Daily Living (LCADL) scale is limited because a lack of a valid cutoff point to this scale. For that, this study sought to compare the functional status between men and women with COPD; and propose a cutoff point for LCADL capable of discriminating the prognosis of these individuals. METHODS: A sample of 138 subjects with moderate-severe COPD was evaluated by the LCADL. The percentage of the individual maximum score was used to obtain a cutoff point capable of discriminating patients with the worse prognosis according to the BODE Index. The cutoff point was also tested in an independent sample (n = 70). RESULTS: Regarding the total score, domestic and leisure domains of the LCADL, men had better scores than women (P ≤ 0.01). The cutoff point found was 37% (area under the curve = 0.70, 95% confidence interval = 0.60-0.80, sensitivity = 0.55 and specificity = 0.74). Individuals who scored ≥ 37% had a worse prognosis and level of physical activities of daily living than those who scored below (P ≤ 0.02). CONCLUSION: When evaluated by the LCADL, men and women with COPD present difference in the functional status. The established cutoff point (37%) adequately discriminates individuals regarding the prognosis, contributing to improve the interpretation capacity of the LCADL.
Entities:
Keywords:
Activities of daily living; Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; Surveys and questionnaires; Symptom assessment
Authors: M R Miller; J Hankinson; V Brusasco; F Burgos; R Casaburi; A Coates; R Crapo; P Enright; C P M van der Grinten; P Gustafsson; R Jensen; D C Johnson; N MacIntyre; R McKay; D Navajas; O F Pedersen; R Pellegrino; G Viegi; J Wanger Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Karen M Simon; Marta F Carpes; Krislainy S Corrêa; Karoliny dos Santos; Manuela Karloh; Anamaria F Mayer Journal: Rev Bras Fisioter Date: 2011 May-Jun
Authors: Christine R Jenkins; Kenneth R Chapman; James F Donohue; Nicolas Roche; Ioanna Tsiligianni; MeiLan K Han Journal: Chest Date: 2016-11-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Anne E Holland; Martijn A Spruit; Thierry Troosters; Milo A Puhan; Véronique Pepin; Didier Saey; Meredith C McCormack; Brian W Carlin; Frank C Sciurba; Fabio Pitta; Jack Wanger; Neil MacIntyre; David A Kaminsky; Bruce H Culver; Susan M Revill; Nidia A Hernandes; Vasileios Andrianopoulos; Carlos Augusto Camillo; Katy E Mitchell; Annemarie L Lee; Catherine J Hill; Sally J Singh Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2014-10-30 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Juan P de Torres; Ciro Casanova; Concepción Hernández; Juan Abreu; Armando Aguirre-Jaime; Bartolome R Celli Journal: Chest Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Shruti Jolly; Kent A Griffith; Rochelle DeCastro; Abigail Stewart; Peter Ubel; Reshma Jagsi Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2014-03-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Hamid Akbarshahi; Zainab Ahmadi; David C Currow; Jacob Sandberg; Zac Vandersman; Aaron Shanon-Honson; Magnus Ekström Journal: ERJ Open Res Date: 2020-11-10
Authors: Kirsten Quadflieg; Ana Machado; Sarah Haesevoets; Marc Daenen; Michiel Thomeer; David Ruttens; Martijn A Spruit; Chris Burtin Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-12-28 Impact factor: 4.241