Literature DB >> 7802735

Asthma and asthma-like symptoms in adults assessed by questionnaires. A literature review.

K Torén1, J Brisman, B Järvholm.   

Abstract

The first widely used questionnaire in respiratory epidemiology was the questionnaire from the Medical Research Council (MRC) of Great Britain. In the first version, from 1960, there were only a few questions about wheezing, but in later editions, more questions about asthma and asthma-like symptoms were added. The MRC questionnaire initiated the development of other questionnaires such as the European Community for Coal and Steel (ECSC) questionnaire of respiratory symptoms and the questionnaire from the American Thoracic Society and the Division of Lung Diseases (ATS-DLD-78). In Tucson, Ariz, a questionnaire was developed in the 1970s that was focused on the subject's own report of asthma. In Great Britain, a questionnaire was developed in the 1980s with the intention of finding the most valid symptom-based items for identifying asthma, "the IUATLD (1984) questionnaire." When judging the validity of a questionnaire, it is essential to understand sensitivity and specificity. Sensitivity is the fraction of the truly diseased subjects found to be diseased using the questionnaire. Specificity is the fraction of the truly healthy subjects found to be healthy using the questionnaire. Regarding questionnaires dealing with asthma, the situation is confusing because of the absence of any gold standard for asthma. The most usual mode of validation has been to test the questionnaire against the results of a clinical physiologic investigation, often a nonspecific bronchial challenge test. Another approach has been to compare the answers from the questionnaire with the clinical diagnoses of asthma. When validated in relation to bronchial challenge tests, the questions about self-reported asthma have a mean sensitivity of 36 percent (range, 7 to 80 percent) and a mean specificity of 94 percent (range, 74 to 100 percent). The questions about "physician-diagnosed asthma" have even higher specificity, 99 percent. When validated in relation to a clinical diagnosis of asthma, the mean sensitivity for the question about self-reported asthma was 68 percent in the reviewed studies (range, 48 to 100 percent). The specificity was 94 percent (range, 78 to 100 percent). One problem in using the presence of bronchial hyperreactivity (BHR) as a gold standard for asthma is that many people with BHR report no respiratory complaints. In other words, the presence of BHR is a measure with high sensitivity but low specificity for asthma. The effect of using a methacholine challenge test as a standard for the disease will thus be an underestimation of the sensitivity of the questionnaire.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 7802735     DOI: 10.1378/chest.104.2.600

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Chest        ISSN: 0012-3692            Impact factor:   9.410


  135 in total

1.  Asthma outcome measures.

Authors:  K D Watkins
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 4.460

2.  Exogenous female sex steroid hormones and risk of asthma and asthma-like symptoms: a cross sectional study of the general population.

Authors:  P Lange; J Parner; E Prescott; C S Ulrik; J Vestbo
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 9.139

3.  The influence of chronic respiratory conditions on health status and work disability.

Authors:  Mark D Eisner; Edward H Yelin; Laura Trupin; Paul D Blanc
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  Gas stove use and respiratory health among adults with asthma in NHANES III.

Authors:  M D Eisner; P D Blanc
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 4.402

5.  Nasal nitric oxide in a random sample of adults and its relationship to sensitization, cat allergen, rhinitis, and ambient nitric oxide.

Authors:  Cecilia Alexanderson; Anna-Carin Olin; Anna Dahlman-Höglund; Caterina Finizia; Kjell Torén
Journal:  Am J Rhinol Allergy       Date:  2012 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.467

6.  Exploring the origins of asthma: Lessons from twin studies.

Authors:  Simon Francis Thomsen
Journal:  Eur Clin Respir J       Date:  2014-09-01

7.  Underdiagnosed asthma in South Australia.

Authors:  R J Adams; D H Wilson; S Appleton; A Taylor; E Dal Grande; C R Chittleborough; R E Ruffin
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 9.139

8.  Psychological distress and depressed mood in employees with asthma, chronic bronchitis or emphysema: a population-based observational study on prevalence and the relationship with smoking cigarettes.

Authors:  Edwin J Wagena; Ijmert Kant; Marcus J H Huibers; Ludovic G P M van Amelsvoort; Gerard M H Swaen; Emiel F M Wouters; Constant P van Schayck
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 8.082

9.  Developing COPD: a 25 year follow up study of the general population.

Authors:  A Løkke; P Lange; H Scharling; P Fabricius; J Vestbo
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 9.139

10.  Asthma/COPD Disparities in Diagnosis and Basic Care Utilization Among Low-Income Primary Care Patients.

Authors:  John Heintzman; Jorge Kaufmann; David Ezekiel-Herrera; Steffani R Bailey; Alexandra Cornell; Maria Ukhanova; Miguel Marino
Journal:  J Immigr Minor Health       Date:  2019-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.