Defining high probability when making a diagnosis of asthma in primary care: mixed-methods consensus workshop.


Journal

BMJ open
ISSN: 2044-6055
Titre abrégé: BMJ Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101552874

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
20 04 2020
Historique:
entrez: 23 4 2020
pubmed: 23 4 2020
medline: 20 4 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Making the diagnosis of asthma is challenging. Guidelines recommend that clinicians identify a group at 'high probability' of asthma. High probability, however, is not numerically defined giving rise to uncertainty. The aim of this work was to build consensus on what constitutes a high probability of asthma in primary care. High probability was defined as the probability threshold at which there is enough information to make a firm diagnosis of asthma, and a subsequent negative test would not alter that opinion (assumed to be a false negative). Mixed-methods study. A consensus workshop using modified nominal group technique was held during an international respiratory conference. International conference attendees eligible if they had knowledge/experience of working in primary care, respiratory medicine and spoke English. Participants took part in facilitated discussions and voted over three rounds on what constituted a high probability of asthma diagnosis. The workshop was audio-recorded, transcribed and qualitatively analysed. Based on final votes, the mean value for a high probability of asthma in primary care was 75% (SD 7.6), representing a perceived trade-off between limiting the number of false positives (more likely if a lower threshold was used) and pragmatism on the basis that first-line preventive therapies (ie, low-dose inhaled corticosteroids) are relatively low risk. The need to review response to treatment was strongly emphasised for detecting non-responders and reviewing the diagnosis. A consensus probability of 75% was the threshold at which the primary care participants in this workshop felt confident to establish the diagnosis of asthma, albeit with the caveat that a review of treatment response was essential. Contextual factors, including availability and timing of tests and the ease with which patients could be reviewed, influenced participants' decision making.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32317260
pii: bmjopen-2019-034559
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034559
pmc: PMC7204930
doi:

Substances chimiques

Adrenal Cortex Hormones 0

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e034559

Subventions

Organisme : Chief Scientist Office
ID : CAF/17/01
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Chief Scientist Office [UK]
ID : CAF/17/01
Pays : International

Informations de copyright

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Competing interests: LD and HP are on the British Thoracic Society (BTS)/Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN) asthma guideline development committee. ASh has previously served on the BTS/SIGN Asthma Guideline Committee and currently serves on Global Initiative for Asthma’s Scientific Committee. ASc is a member of the Committee of the German National Asthma Guideline (Nationale VersorgungsLeitlinie Asthma (NVL) Asthma).

Références

Chest. 2002 Apr;121(4):1051-7
pubmed: 11948032
BMJ. 2018 Jan 9;360:k29
pubmed: 29317387
Eur Respir J. 2019 Jan 10;53(1):
pubmed: 30309972
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000 Jan;161(1):309-29
pubmed: 10619836
Thorax. 2017 Feb;72(2):109-116
pubmed: 27388487
NPJ Prim Care Respir Med. 2019 May 9;29(1):19
pubmed: 31073125
Health Expect. 2016 Jun;19(3):602-16
pubmed: 25523361
J Clin Epidemiol. 2012 Aug;65(8):846-54
pubmed: 22640568
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 May 23;4(3):e001435
pubmed: 31263586
J Clin Epidemiol. 2002 Dec;55(12):1201-6
pubmed: 12547450
Lancet. 2018 Jan 27;391(10118):350-400
pubmed: 28911920
Prim Care Respir J. 2012 Mar;21(1):19-27
pubmed: 22273628
NPJ Prim Care Respir Med. 2019 Jul 17;29(1):27
pubmed: 31316068
BMJ. 2017 Nov 1;359:j4218
pubmed: 29092826
NPJ Prim Care Respir Med. 2015 Jan 08;25:14101
pubmed: 25569634
JAMA. 2013 Jun 12;309(22):2327-8
pubmed: 23757080
Health Technol Assess. 1998;2(3):i-iv, 1-88
pubmed: 9561895
Eur Respir J Suppl. 2003 Jan;39:16s-22s
pubmed: 12572697
Br J Gen Pract. 2016 Mar;66(644):e152-7
pubmed: 26917656
N Engl J Med. 1980 May 15;302(20):1109-17
pubmed: 7366635
Chest. 2007 Oct;132(4):1151-61
pubmed: 17573515
Eur Respir J. 2016 Feb;47(2):410-9
pubmed: 26828055
Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2009 Oct;134(41):2053-8
pubmed: 19802765
JAMA. 2017 Jan 17;317(3):269-279
pubmed: 28114551
Br J Gen Pract. 1997 Aug;47(421):487-92
pubmed: 9302787
BMC Pulm Med. 2009 Jul 10;9:31
pubmed: 19591673

Auteurs

Luke Daines (L)

Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research, Usher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK luke.daines@ed.ac.uk.

Steff Lewis (S)

Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research, Usher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Antonius Schneider (A)

TUM School of Medicine, Institute of General Practice and Health Services Research, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

Aziz Sheikh (A)

Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research, Usher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Hilary Pinnock (H)

Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research, Usher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH