Cargando…

How Reliable Are Current Data for Assessing the Actual Prevalence of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease?

BACKGROUND: Estimating COPD occurrence is perceived by the scientific community as a matter of increasing interest because of the worldwide diffusion of the disease. We aimed to estimate COPD prevalence by using administrative databases from a city in central Italy for 2002–2006, improving both the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Romanelli, Anna Maria, Raciti, Mauro, Protti, Maria Angela, Prediletto, Renato, Fornai, Edo, Faustini, Annunziata
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4763569/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26901166
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149302
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Estimating COPD occurrence is perceived by the scientific community as a matter of increasing interest because of the worldwide diffusion of the disease. We aimed to estimate COPD prevalence by using administrative databases from a city in central Italy for 2002–2006, improving both the sensitivity and the reliability of the estimate. METHODS: Multiple sources were used, integrating the hospital discharge register (HDR), clinical charts, spirometry and the cause-specific mortality register (CMR) in a longitudinal algorithm, to reduce underestimation of COPD prevalence. Prevalence was also estimated on the basis of COPD cases confirmed through spirometry, to correct misclassification. Estimating such prevalence relied on using coefficients of validation, derived as the positive predictive value (PPV) for being an actual COPD case from clinical and spirometric data at the Institute of Clinical Physiology of the National Research Council. RESULTS: We found that sensitivity of COPD prevalence increased by 37%. The highest estimate (4.43 per 100 residents) was observed in the 5-year period, using a 3-year longitudinal approach and combined data from three sources. We found that 17% of COPD cases were misclassified. The above estimate of COPD prevalence decreased (3.66 per 100 residents) when coefficients of validation were applied. The PPV was 80% for the HDR, 82% for clinical diagnoses and 91% for the CMR. CONCLUSIONS: Adjusting the COPD prevalence for both underestimation and misclassification of the cases makes administrative data more reliable for epidemiological purposes.