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 journalArticle

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

Fingerprint

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Self Report
Incidence
Physicians
Odds Ratio
Sensitivity and Specificity
Information Storage and Retrieval
Sample Size
Disease Progression
Primary Health Care
Logistic Models
Clinical Trials
Costs and Cost Analysis

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

Cite this

Frei, A., Siebeling, L., Wolters, C., Held, L., Muggensturm, P., Strassmann, A., ... Puhan, M. A. (2016). The Inaccuracy of Patient Recall for COPD Exacerbation Rate Estimation and Its Implications: Results from Central Adjudication. Chest, 150(4), 860-868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2016.06.031

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.

In: Chest, Vol. 150, No. 4, 01.10.2016, p. 860-868.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Frei, A, Siebeling, L, Wolters, C, Held, L, Muggensturm, P, Strassmann, A, Zoller, M, ter Riet, G & Puhan, MA 2016, 'The Inaccuracy of Patient Recall for COPD Exacerbation Rate Estimation and Its Implications: Results from Central Adjudication', Chest, vol. 150, no. 4, pp. 860-868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2016.06.031
Frei, Anja ; Siebeling, Lara ; Wolters, Callista ; Held, Leonhard ; Muggensturm, Patrick ; Strassmann, Alexandra ; Zoller, Marco ; ter Riet, Gerben ; Puhan, Milo A. / The Inaccuracy of Patient Recall for COPD Exacerbation Rate Estimation and Its Implications : Results from Central Adjudication. In: Chest. 2016 ; Vol. 150, No. 4. pp. 860-868.
@article{27b6a8b0d49647f88ccd381beaf616c2,
title = "The Inaccuracy of Patient Recall for COPD Exacerbation Rate Estimation and Its Implications: Results from Central Adjudication",
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",
keywords = "adjudication committee, COPD, end point, exacerbation, outcome measurement error, sample size",
author = "Anja Frei and Lara Siebeling and Callista Wolters and Leonhard Held and Patrick Muggensturm and Alexandra Strassmann and Marco Zoller and {ter Riet}, Gerben and Puhan, {Milo A.}",
year = "2016",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.chest.2016.06.031",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "150",
pages = "860--868",
journal = "Chest",
issn = "0012-3692",
publisher = "American College of Chest Physicians",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Inaccuracy of Patient Recall for COPD Exacerbation Rate Estimation and Its Implications

T2 - Results from Central Adjudication

AU - Frei, Anja

AU - Siebeling, Lara

AU - Wolters, Callista

AU - Held, Leonhard

AU - Muggensturm, Patrick

AU - Strassmann, Alexandra

AU - Zoller, Marco

AU - ter Riet, Gerben

AU - Puhan, Milo A.

PY - 2016/10/1

Y1 - 2016/10/1

N2 - 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

AB - 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

KW - adjudication committee

KW - COPD

KW - end point

KW - exacerbation

KW - outcome measurement error

KW - sample size

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84994527437&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84994527437&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.chest.2016.06.031

DO - 10.1016/j.chest.2016.06.031

M3 - Article

C2 - 27400907

AN - SCOPUS:84994527437

VL - 150

SP - 860

EP - 868

JO - Chest

JF - Chest

SN - 0012-3692

IS - 4

ER -