Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

The inaccuracy of patient recall for COPD exacerbation rate estimation and its implications: results from central adjudication


Frei, Anja; Siebeling, Lara; Wolters, Callista; Held, Leonhard; Muggensturm, Patrick; Strassmann, Alexandra; Zoller, Marco; Ter Riet, Gerben; Puhan, Milo A (2016). The inaccuracy of patient recall for COPD exacerbation rate estimation and its implications: results from central adjudication. Chest, 150(4):860-868.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: COPD exacerbation incidence rates are often ascertained retrospectively through patient recall and self-reports. We compared exacerbation ascertainment through patient self-reports and single-physician chart review to central adjudication by a committee and explored determinants and consequences of misclassification.
METHODS: Self-reported exacerbations (event-based definition) in 409 primary care patients with COPD participating in the International Collaborative Effort on Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease: Exacerbation Risk Index Cohorts (ICE COLD ERIC) cohort were ascertained every 6 months over 3 years. Exacerbations were adjudicated by single experienced physicians and an adjudication committee who had information from patient charts. We assessed the accuracy (sensitivities and specificities) of self-reports and single-physician chart review against a central adjudication committee (AC) (reference standard). We used multinomial logistic regression and bootstrap stability analyses to explore determinants of misclassifications.
RESULTS: The AC identified 648 exacerbations, corresponding to an incidence rate of 0.60 ± 0.83 exacerbations/patient-year and a cumulative incidence proportion of 58.9%. Patients self-reported 841 exacerbations (incidence rate, 0.75 ± 1.01; incidence proportion, 59.7%). The sensitivity and specificity of self-reports were 84% and 76%, respectively, those of single-physician chart review were between 89% and 96% and 87% and 99%, respectively. The multinomial regression model and bootstrap selection showed that having experienced more exacerbations was the only factor consistently associated with underreporting and overreporting of exacerbations (underreporters: relative risk ratio [RRR], 2.16; 95% CI, 1.76-2.65 and overreporters: RRR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.39-2.00).
CONCLUSIONS: Patient 6-month recall of exacerbation events are inaccurate. This may lead to inaccurate estimates of incidence measures and underestimation of treatment effects. The use of multiple data sources combined with event adjudication could substantially reduce sample size requirements and possibly cost of studies.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00706602.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: COPD exacerbation incidence rates are often ascertained retrospectively through patient recall and self-reports. We compared exacerbation ascertainment through patient self-reports and single-physician chart review to central adjudication by a committee and explored determinants and consequences of misclassification.
METHODS: Self-reported exacerbations (event-based definition) in 409 primary care patients with COPD participating in the International Collaborative Effort on Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease: Exacerbation Risk Index Cohorts (ICE COLD ERIC) cohort were ascertained every 6 months over 3 years. Exacerbations were adjudicated by single experienced physicians and an adjudication committee who had information from patient charts. We assessed the accuracy (sensitivities and specificities) of self-reports and single-physician chart review against a central adjudication committee (AC) (reference standard). We used multinomial logistic regression and bootstrap stability analyses to explore determinants of misclassifications.
RESULTS: The AC identified 648 exacerbations, corresponding to an incidence rate of 0.60 ± 0.83 exacerbations/patient-year and a cumulative incidence proportion of 58.9%. Patients self-reported 841 exacerbations (incidence rate, 0.75 ± 1.01; incidence proportion, 59.7%). The sensitivity and specificity of self-reports were 84% and 76%, respectively, those of single-physician chart review were between 89% and 96% and 87% and 99%, respectively. The multinomial regression model and bootstrap selection showed that having experienced more exacerbations was the only factor consistently associated with underreporting and overreporting of exacerbations (underreporters: relative risk ratio [RRR], 2.16; 95% CI, 1.76-2.65 and overreporters: RRR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.39-2.00).
CONCLUSIONS: Patient 6-month recall of exacerbation events are inaccurate. This may lead to inaccurate estimates of incidence measures and underestimation of treatment effects. The use of multiple data sources combined with event adjudication could substantially reduce sample size requirements and possibly cost of studies.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00706602.

Statistics

Citations

3 citations in Web of Science®
2 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

2 downloads since deposited on 29 Nov 2016
2 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute (EBPI)
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:October 2016
Deposited On:29 Nov 2016 13:31
Last Modified:11 Dec 2016 06:18
Publisher:Elsevier
ISSN:0012-3692
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2016.06.031
PubMed ID:27400907

Download

Preview Icon on Download
Content: Accepted Version
Filetype: PDF - Registered users only until 1 November 2017
Size: 243kB
View at publisher
Embargo till: 2017-11-01

Article Networks

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations