The Inaccuracy of Patient Recall for COPD Exacerbation Rate Estimation and Its Implications: Results from Central Adjudication

Anja Frei, Lara Siebeling, Callista Wolters, Leonhard Held, Patrick Muggensturm, Alexandra Strassmann, Marco Zoller, Gerben ter Riet, Milo A. Puhan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

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

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)860-868
Number of pages9
JournalChest
Volume150
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2016
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • adjudication committee
  • COPD
  • end point
  • exacerbation
  • outcome measurement error
  • sample size

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'The Inaccuracy of Patient Recall for COPD Exacerbation Rate Estimation and Its Implications: Results from Central Adjudication'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this