4.5 Article

Overdiagnosis of asthma in obese and nonobese adults

期刊

CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL
卷 179, 期 11, 页码 1121-1131

出版社

CMA-CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.081332

关键词

-

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [MOP-77520]
  2. Division of Respiratory Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: It is unclear whether asthma is overdiagnosed in developed countries, particularly among obese individuals, who may be more likely than nonobese people to experience dyspnea. Methods: We conducted a longitudinal study involving nonobese (body mass index 20-25) and obese (body mass index >= 30) individuals with asthma that had been diagnosed by a physician. Participants were recruited from 8 Canadian cities by means of random-digit dialing. A diagnosis of current asthma was excluded in those who did not have evidence of acute worsening of asthma symptoms, reversible airflow obstruction or bronchial hyperresponsiveness, despite being weaned off asthma medications. We stopped asthma medications in those in whom a diagnosis of asthma was excluded and assessed their clinical outcomes over 6 months. Results: Of 540 individuals with physician-diagnosed asthma who participated in the study, 496 (242 obese and 254 nonobese) could be conclusively assessed for a diagnosis of asthma. Asthma was ultimately excluded in 31.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 26.3%-37.9%) in the obese group and in 28.7% ( 95% CI 23.5%-34.6%) in the nonobese group. Overdiagnosis of asthma was no more likely to occur among obese individuals than among nonobese individuals (p = 0.46). Of those in whom asthma was excluded, 65.5% did not need to take asthma medication or seek health care services because of asthma symptoms during a 6-month follow-up period. Interpretation: About one-third of obese and nonobese individuals with physician-diagnosed asthma did not have asthma when objectively assessed. This finding suggests that, in developed countries such as Canada, asthma is overdiagnosed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据