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

Dimensions.ai Metrics
10 citations in Web of Science®
9 citations in Scopus®
11 citations in Microsoft Academic
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

16 downloads since deposited on 29 Nov 2016
14 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
Uncontrolled Keywords:Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine, Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine, Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
Language:English
Date:October 2016
Deposited On:29 Nov 2016 13:31
Last Modified:19 Aug 2018 05:13
Publisher:Elsevier
ISSN:0012-3692
OA Status:Green
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2016.06.031
PubMed ID:27400907

Download

Download PDF  'The inaccuracy of patient recall for COPD exacerbation rate estimation and its implications: results from central adjudication'.
Preview
Content: Accepted Version
Filetype: PDF
Size: 243kB
View at publisher
Licence: Creative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)