0
Clinical Investigations: ASTHMA |

A Comparison of the Validity of Different Diagnostic Tests in Adults With Asthma*

Cameron J. Hunter, MBBS; Christopher E. Brightling, MBBS; Gerrit Woltmann, MD; Andrew J. Wardlaw, PhD; Ian D. Pavord, DM
Author and Funding Information

*From the Institute for Lung Health, Department of Respiratory Medicine and Thoracic Surgery, Glenfield Hospital, Leicester, UK.

Correspondence to: Ian D. Pavord, DM, Institute for Lung Health, Department of Respiratory Medicine and Thoracic Surgery, Glenfield Hospital, Groby Rd, Leicester, LE3 9QP, UK



Chest. 2002;121(4):1051-1057. doi:10.1378/chest.121.4.1051
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Study objectives: Diagnosing asthma is not always easy, and there are times when objective tests can be helpful. The extent to which these tests alter the probability of asthma depends on how much more commonly the test result is positive in subjects with asthma compared to healthy subjects and particularly subjects with conditions that are commonly confused with asthma. We set out to compare the sensitivity and specificity of different tests in this setting.

Design: Single-center, cross-sectional, observational study.

Setting: Teaching hospital.

Patients: Twenty-one healthy control subjects, 69 patients with asthma, and 20 subjects referred to the hospital with a diagnosis of asthma who were found to have alternative explanations for their symptoms (ie, pseudoasthma).

Interventions: We measured methacholine airway responsiveness, the maximum within-day peak expiratory flow amplitude mean percentage (derived from twice-daily readings for > 2 weeks), the FEV1/FVC ratio, the percentage change in FEV1 10 min after the administration of 200 μg inhaled albuterol, and the differential eosinophil count in blood and induced sputum. We derived normal ranges (from the 95% upper or lower limit for healthy subjects), sensitivity, and specificity (ie, the percentage of subjects with pseudoasthma who had negative test results).

Results: Most tests were less specific when the reference population was composed of subjects with conditions that can be confused with asthma. Methacholine airway responsiveness and the sputum differential eosinophil count were the most sensitive (91% and 72%, respectively) and specific (90% and 80%, respectively) tests.

Conclusion: We conclude that methacholine airway responsiveness and the sputum differential eosinophil count are the most useful objective tests in patients with mild asthma.

Figures in this Article

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Topics

asthma

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Figures

Tables

References

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Find Similar Articles
CHEST Journal Articles
PubMed Articles
  • CHEST Journal
    Print ISSN: 0012-3692
    Online ISSN: 1931-3543