↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Validity and interpretation of spirometric recordings to diagnose COPD in UK primary care

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
Title
Validity and interpretation of spirometric recordings to diagnose COPD in UK primary care
Published in
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, June 2017
DOI 10.2147/copd.s133891
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kieran Rothnie, Joht Chandan, Harry Goss, Hana Müllerová, Jennifer Quint

Abstract

The diagnosis of COPD is dependent upon clinical judgment and confirmation of the presence of airflow obstruction using spirometry. Spirometry is now routinely available; however, spirometry incorrectly performed or interpreted can lead to misdiagnosis. We aimed to determine whether spirometry undertaken in primary care for patients suspected to have COPD was of sufficient quality and whether their spirometry was correctly interpreted. Two chest physicians re-read all spirometric readings for both quality of the procedure and interpretation, received as a part of COPD validation studies using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). We then used logistic regression to investigate predictors of correct interpretation. Spirometry traces were obtained for 306 patients, of which 221 (72.2%) were conducted in primary care. Of those conducted in primary care, 98.6% (n=218) of spirometry traces were of adequate quality. Of those traces that were of adequate quality and conducted in primary care, and in whom a general practitioner (GP) diagnosis of COPD had been made, 72.5% (n=218) were consistent with obstruction. Historical records for asthma diagnosis significantly decreased odds of correct interpretation. The quality of the spirometry procedure undertaken in primary care is high. However, this was not reflected in the quality of interpretation, suggesting an unmet training in primary care. The quality of the spirometry procedure as demonstrated by spirometric tracings provides a re-assurance for the use of spirometric values available in the electronic health care record databases for research purposes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 20%
Student > Master 8 14%
Other 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 10 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 14 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 April 2018.
All research outputs
#7,376,597
of 12,788,180 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#858
of 1,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,724
of 263,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#30
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,788,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,559 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,681 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.