Setting: Three pediatric pneumatologist offices in Bucaramanga, Colombia. Objective: To establish the concordance between medical criteria and the Childhood-Asthma Control Test (cACT). Design: Study of the assessment ...Setting: Three pediatric pneumatologist offices in Bucaramanga, Colombia. Objective: To establish the concordance between medical criteria and the Childhood-Asthma Control Test (cACT). Design: Study of the assessment of diagnostic technology using transverse sampling. 127 asthma patients aged between 4 and 11 years and their parents filled before clinical evaluation made by a pediatric pneumologist. Patients were classified as controlled or not controlled. Criteria validity was established comparing this classification using Cohen’s kappa and performance indicators according to ROC analysis. Results: 78% of the patients were controlled;patients who are not controlled have a higher score in cACT (mean difference: 3.25 points). Concordance among cACT subscales is acceptable (ρ = 0.554). cACT’s sensitivity was 53.6%, specificity 78.8%, positive likelihood ratio (LR+) 2.53, and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) 0.59. The best cut-off point is 15, with 98% sensitivity, a specificity of 14.3%, LR+ in 1.14, and LR- in 0.14. Conclusions: cACT is a valid tool to determine asthma control in children without replacing medical criteria or other clinical tests. In populations with difficult access to high complexity services, it is useful to decide whether urgent referral to the specialist is necessary.展开更多
文摘Setting: Three pediatric pneumatologist offices in Bucaramanga, Colombia. Objective: To establish the concordance between medical criteria and the Childhood-Asthma Control Test (cACT). Design: Study of the assessment of diagnostic technology using transverse sampling. 127 asthma patients aged between 4 and 11 years and their parents filled before clinical evaluation made by a pediatric pneumologist. Patients were classified as controlled or not controlled. Criteria validity was established comparing this classification using Cohen’s kappa and performance indicators according to ROC analysis. Results: 78% of the patients were controlled;patients who are not controlled have a higher score in cACT (mean difference: 3.25 points). Concordance among cACT subscales is acceptable (ρ = 0.554). cACT’s sensitivity was 53.6%, specificity 78.8%, positive likelihood ratio (LR+) 2.53, and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) 0.59. The best cut-off point is 15, with 98% sensitivity, a specificity of 14.3%, LR+ in 1.14, and LR- in 0.14. Conclusions: cACT is a valid tool to determine asthma control in children without replacing medical criteria or other clinical tests. In populations with difficult access to high complexity services, it is useful to decide whether urgent referral to the specialist is necessary.
