Reliability, validity, and minimal detectable change of computerised respiratory sounds in patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

• Main Author: Oliveira, Ana
• Publication Date: 2017
• Other Authors: Lage, Susan, Rodrigues, João, Marques, Alda
• Format: Article
• Language: eng
• Source: Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
• Download full: http://hdl.handle.net/10773/22271
• topic: Chronic obstructive; Pulmonary disease; Reproducibility of results; Respiratory sounds; Spirometry

Introduction Computerized respiratory sounds (CRS) are closely related to the movement of air within the tracheobronchial tree and are promising outcome measures in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, CRS measurement properties have been poorly tested. Objective The aim of this study was to assess the reliability, validity and the minimal detectable changes (MDC) of CRS in patients with stable COPD. Methods Fifty patients (36♂, 67.26 ± 9.31y, FEV1 49.52 ± 19.67%predicted) were enrolled. CRS were recorded simultaneously at seven anatomic locations (trachea; right and left anterior, lateral and posterior chest). The number of crackles, wheeze occupation rate, median frequency (F50) and maximum intensity (Imax) were processed using validated algorithms. Within-day and between-days reliability, criterion and construct validity, validity to predict exacerbations and MDC were established. Results CRS presented moderate-to-excellent within-day reliability (ICC1,3 ≥ 0.51; P < .05) and moderate-to-good between-days reliability (ICC1,2 ≥ 0.47; P < .05) for most locations. Negligible-to-moderate correlations with FEV1%predicted were found (–0.53 < rs < –0.28; P < .05), and the inspiratory number of crackles were the best discriminator between mild-to-moderate and severe-to-very severe airflow limitations (area under the curve >0.78). CRS correlated poorly with patient-reported outcomes (rs < 0.48; P < .05) and did not predict exacerbations. Inspiratory number of crackles at posterior right chest, inspiratory F50 at trachea and anterior left chest and expiratory Imax at anterior right chest were simultaneously reliable and valid, and their MDC were 2.41, 55.27, 29.55 and 3.98, respectively. Conclusion CRS are reliable and valid. Their use, integrated with other clinical and patient-reported measures, may fill the gap of assessing small airways and contribute toward a patient's comprehensive evaluation.