Your English writing platform
Free sign upSuggestions(5)
Exact(14)
Future improvements in quality of asthma care should focus on increasing the use of spirometry for asthma diagnosis and monitoring.
However, the use of spirometry for early detection of COPD is still an issue of debate [ 8- 10].
Good quality management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) requires the use of spirometry for diagnosis, staging and ongoing monitoring[ 1].
Use of spirometry for both diagnosis and monitoring was highest over time in the blended capitation group and lowest over time in the fee-for-service group.
Both the asthma and COPD guidelines recommended use of spirometry for diagnosis, grading severity and monitoring progression of disease and response to treatment [ 6- 8], but it was used infrequently (13.3%) in this population.
While the blended capitation model had higher rates of use of spirometry for diagnosis and monitoring, and higher rates of ICS prescriptions, they had lower rates of outpatient visits and higher rates of emergency department visits.
Similar(46)
Another limitation derives from the case-definition criterion used, i.e., the need for patients' clinical histories to show evidence of diagnosis of COPD, since FPs are well known for making little use of spirometry and for misclassifying COPD patients [ 45].
Use of spirometry is essential for the accurate diagnosis of respiratory disease but it is underused in both primary and specialist care.
This may be partly related to the difficulties in the use of spirometry, the gold standard for chronic respiratory obstructive disease (COPD) diagnosis.
There still is no consensus on the use of spirometry as a strategy for smoking cessation, given that there is insufficient scientific evidence from high quality studies to recommend the use of this technique.
Logistic regression analysis showed an improved use of spirometry when inhaled corticosteroids were prescribed for asthma (OR = 5.2; CI 2.9 9.2) or COPD (OR = 4.7; CI 2.0 10.6).
More suggestions(15)
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.
Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com