Effectiveness of case finding strategies for COPD in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Shamil Mm Haroon; Rachel E Jordan; Joanne O'Beirne-Elliman; Peymane Adab

doi:10.1038/npjpcrm.2015.56

Effectiveness of case finding strategies for COPD in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Shamil Mm Haroon, Rachel E Jordan, Joanne O'Beirne-Elliman, Peymane Adab

Applied Health Research

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

27 Citations (Scopus)

190 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is widely underdiagnosed, but the most effective approach for identifying these patients is unknown.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to summarise and compare the effectiveness of different case finding approaches for undiagnosed COPD in primary care.

METHODS: A systematic review of primary studies of any design evaluating case finding strategies for COPD in primary care among individuals aged ⩾35 years with no prior diagnosis was conducted. Medline, Embase and other bibliographic databases were searched from 1997 to 2013, and methodological quality was assessed using standard tools. Results were described and meta-analysis of the uptake and yield from different approaches was performed where there was sufficient homogeneity.

RESULTS: Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 1 controlled trial and 35 uncontrolled studies were identified that assessed the identification of new cases of COPD through systematic case finding. A range of approaches were used including pre-screening with questionnaires (n=13) or handheld flow meters (n=5) or direct invitation to diagnostic spirometry (n=30). Overall, any approach identified more undiagnosed COPD compared with usual care. Targeting those at higher risk (e.g., smokers) and pre-screening (e.g., using questionnaires) is likely to increase the yield. However, studies were heterogeneous and were limited by a lack of comparison groups, inadequate reporting and diversity in the definition of COPD, which limited our ability to draw firm conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS: There is extensive heterogeneity among studies evaluating case finding strategies for COPD, with few RCTs. Well-conducted RCTs comparing case finding approaches are needed to identify the most effective target population, recruitment strategy and screening tests, using a clinical definition of COPD, and addressing the limitations highlighted in this review. There is also a need to evaluate the impact of case finding on clinical care and patient outcomes.

Original language	English
Article number	15056
Journal	NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine
Volume	25
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1038/npjpcrm.2015.56
Publication status	Published - 27 Aug 2015

Access to Document

10.1038/npjpcrm.2015.56

Haroon_et_al_Effectiveness_case_finding_strategies_NPJ_Primary_Care_2015
Checked October 2015
Final published version, 818 KBLicence: Creative Commons: Attribution (CC BY)

Cite this

@article{9fc597a811cf47088407f35383feabb4,

title = "Effectiveness of case finding strategies for COPD in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis",

abstract = "BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is widely underdiagnosed, but the most effective approach for identifying these patients is unknown.AIMS: The aim of this study was to summarise and compare the effectiveness of different case finding approaches for undiagnosed COPD in primary care.METHODS: A systematic review of primary studies of any design evaluating case finding strategies for COPD in primary care among individuals aged ⩾35 years with no prior diagnosis was conducted. Medline, Embase and other bibliographic databases were searched from 1997 to 2013, and methodological quality was assessed using standard tools. Results were described and meta-analysis of the uptake and yield from different approaches was performed where there was sufficient homogeneity.RESULTS: Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 1 controlled trial and 35 uncontrolled studies were identified that assessed the identification of new cases of COPD through systematic case finding. A range of approaches were used including pre-screening with questionnaires (n=13) or handheld flow meters (n=5) or direct invitation to diagnostic spirometry (n=30). Overall, any approach identified more undiagnosed COPD compared with usual care. Targeting those at higher risk (e.g., smokers) and pre-screening (e.g., using questionnaires) is likely to increase the yield. However, studies were heterogeneous and were limited by a lack of comparison groups, inadequate reporting and diversity in the definition of COPD, which limited our ability to draw firm conclusions.CONCLUSIONS: There is extensive heterogeneity among studies evaluating case finding strategies for COPD, with few RCTs. Well-conducted RCTs comparing case finding approaches are needed to identify the most effective target population, recruitment strategy and screening tests, using a clinical definition of COPD, and addressing the limitations highlighted in this review. There is also a need to evaluate the impact of case finding on clinical care and patient outcomes.",

author = "Haroon, {Shamil Mm} and Jordan, {Rachel E} and Joanne O'Beirne-Elliman and Peymane Adab",

year = "2015",

month = aug,

day = "27",

doi = "10.1038/npjpcrm.2015.56",

language = "English",

volume = "25",

journal = "NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine",

issn = "2055-1010",

publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effectiveness of case finding strategies for COPD in primary care

T2 - a systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Haroon, Shamil Mm

AU - Jordan, Rachel E

AU - O'Beirne-Elliman, Joanne

AU - Adab, Peymane

PY - 2015/8/27

Y1 - 2015/8/27

N2 - BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is widely underdiagnosed, but the most effective approach for identifying these patients is unknown.AIMS: The aim of this study was to summarise and compare the effectiveness of different case finding approaches for undiagnosed COPD in primary care.METHODS: A systematic review of primary studies of any design evaluating case finding strategies for COPD in primary care among individuals aged ⩾35 years with no prior diagnosis was conducted. Medline, Embase and other bibliographic databases were searched from 1997 to 2013, and methodological quality was assessed using standard tools. Results were described and meta-analysis of the uptake and yield from different approaches was performed where there was sufficient homogeneity.RESULTS: Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 1 controlled trial and 35 uncontrolled studies were identified that assessed the identification of new cases of COPD through systematic case finding. A range of approaches were used including pre-screening with questionnaires (n=13) or handheld flow meters (n=5) or direct invitation to diagnostic spirometry (n=30). Overall, any approach identified more undiagnosed COPD compared with usual care. Targeting those at higher risk (e.g., smokers) and pre-screening (e.g., using questionnaires) is likely to increase the yield. However, studies were heterogeneous and were limited by a lack of comparison groups, inadequate reporting and diversity in the definition of COPD, which limited our ability to draw firm conclusions.CONCLUSIONS: There is extensive heterogeneity among studies evaluating case finding strategies for COPD, with few RCTs. Well-conducted RCTs comparing case finding approaches are needed to identify the most effective target population, recruitment strategy and screening tests, using a clinical definition of COPD, and addressing the limitations highlighted in this review. There is also a need to evaluate the impact of case finding on clinical care and patient outcomes.

AB - BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is widely underdiagnosed, but the most effective approach for identifying these patients is unknown.AIMS: The aim of this study was to summarise and compare the effectiveness of different case finding approaches for undiagnosed COPD in primary care.METHODS: A systematic review of primary studies of any design evaluating case finding strategies for COPD in primary care among individuals aged ⩾35 years with no prior diagnosis was conducted. Medline, Embase and other bibliographic databases were searched from 1997 to 2013, and methodological quality was assessed using standard tools. Results were described and meta-analysis of the uptake and yield from different approaches was performed where there was sufficient homogeneity.RESULTS: Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 1 controlled trial and 35 uncontrolled studies were identified that assessed the identification of new cases of COPD through systematic case finding. A range of approaches were used including pre-screening with questionnaires (n=13) or handheld flow meters (n=5) or direct invitation to diagnostic spirometry (n=30). Overall, any approach identified more undiagnosed COPD compared with usual care. Targeting those at higher risk (e.g., smokers) and pre-screening (e.g., using questionnaires) is likely to increase the yield. However, studies were heterogeneous and were limited by a lack of comparison groups, inadequate reporting and diversity in the definition of COPD, which limited our ability to draw firm conclusions.CONCLUSIONS: There is extensive heterogeneity among studies evaluating case finding strategies for COPD, with few RCTs. Well-conducted RCTs comparing case finding approaches are needed to identify the most effective target population, recruitment strategy and screening tests, using a clinical definition of COPD, and addressing the limitations highlighted in this review. There is also a need to evaluate the impact of case finding on clinical care and patient outcomes.

U2 - 10.1038/npjpcrm.2015.56

DO - 10.1038/npjpcrm.2015.56

M3 - Article

C2 - 26313400

SN - 2055-1010

VL - 25

JO - NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine

JF - NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine

M1 - 15056

ER -

Effectiveness of case finding strategies for COPD in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this