Potential Limitations of Clinical Criteria for the Diagnosis of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis/Cryptogenic Fibrosing AlveolitisPeckham R.M.a · Shorr A.F.b · Helman Jr D.L.b
Departments of aInternal Medicine, and bPulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, D.C., USA
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
Article / Publication Details
Background: The need to perform surgical lung biopsy (SLB) in all cases of suspected idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis/cryptogenic fibrosing alveolitis (IPF/CFA) is controversial. The American Thoracic Society (ATS) and the European Respiratory Society (ERS) recently endorsed explicit clinical criteria for the diagnosis of IPF/CFA in the absence of SLB. Prior studies evaluating clinical criteria for the diagnosis of IPF/CFA have been limited in that either they were performed by clinicians with expertise in the diagnosis of IPF/CFA or they did not utilize explicit diagnostic criteria. We investigated the accuracy of the ATS/ERS criteria when applied in a general pulmonary medicine setting. Objectives: To determine the interobserver variability of clinical criteria for the diagnosis of IPF/CFA. Methods: This was a retrospective, blinded evaluation by three board certified pulmonary physicians without extensive experience in the evaluation of IPF/CFA performed at a United States Army tertiary care academic medical center. Patients referred for surgical lung biopsy as part of a diagnostic evaluation of interstitial lung disease (ILD) were evaluated. The physicians reviewed high-resolution computed tomography scans of the chest (HRCT) and clinical data for each patient. The physicians were blinded to all other data and to the opinions of other study participants. Employing the histologic presence of usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) coupled with appropriate clinical findings as the gold standard for a diagnosis of IPF/CFA we determined the accuracy and interobserver variability for a diagnosis of IPF/CFA based on HRCT alone and based on the ATS/ERS clinical criteria. Results: The sensitivity and positive predictive value for a HRCT diagnosis of IPF/CFA were 71% each while specificity and negative predictive value were 67% each. For the ATS/ERS criteria sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 71, 75, 77 and 69%, respectively. The interobserver variability, expressed as a kappa coefficient, for HRCT and the ATS/ERS criteria were 0.59 and 0.53, respectively. Conclusions: Both HRCT and the ATS/ERS clinical criteria may lead to misdiagnosis of patients with ILD. Further studies are needed to fully characterize the accuracy of these tests when applied in a routine pulmonary medicine practice setting.
© 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.