Occupational Asthma Reference

Turner S, McNamee R, Roberts C, Bradshaw L, Curran A, Francis M, Fishwick D, Agius R, Agreement in diagnosing occupational asthma by occupational and respiratory physicians who report to surveillance schemes for work-related ill-health, Occup Environ Med, 2010;67:471-478,

Keywords:

Known Authors

Andrew Curran, HSL, Sheffield, UK Andrew Curran

David Fishwick, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, UK David Fishwick

Lisa Bradshaw, Health and Safety Laboratories Lisa Bradshaw

Raymond Agius, Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health, Manchester University Raymond Agius

Roseanne McNamee, Manchester University COEH Roseanne McNamee

Mandy Francis, Health and Safety Laboratories Mandy Francis

Susan Turner, Centre for Occupational and Environmental Medicine Manchester Susan Turner

If you would like to become a known author and have your picture displayed along with your papers then please get in touch from the contact page. Known authors can choose to receive emails when their papers receive comments.

Abstract

Objectives To assess diagnostic agreement for occupational asthma, and to identify case and rater characteristics associated with this diagnosis.

Methods Summaries of possible occupational asthma cases were sent to 104 occupational and respiratory physicians. Raters assigned likelihood scores (0–100%) of occupational asthma based on case histories (phase 1), and on histories plus investigative procedures (phase 2). Interclass correlation coefficients were calculated as statistical measures of reliability for occupational asthma scores. Comparisons between mean scores were assessed for statistical significance using tests based on multilevel models. RRs were calculated to summarise effects of raters' demographics, and of supplying investigative procedures information.

Results Occupational asthma scores showed limited agreement within each group of (occupational or respiratory) physicians, but scores were not systematically different. The difference between mean overall scores was 2.1% (52.1% occupational physicians; 50.0% respiratory physicians) in phase 1 (95% CI -2.6 to 6.8, p=0.37). In phase 2, mean overall scores were 46.1% (occupational physicians) and 41.5% (respiratory physicians); the difference in mean overall scores was 4.6% (95% CI -3.5 to 12.5, p=0.27). Raters with General Medical Council registration =1986 were more likely to give a positive occupational asthma diagnosis. In phase 2, male raters were more likely to label cases as occupational asthma than female raters (RR 4.5, 95% CI 3.3 to 6.0).

Conclusions The RR of a positive occupational asthma diagnosis was unaffected by clinical speciality. Further work on why physicians consider cases to be occupational asthma will assist better diagnosis and prevention of this disease.

Plain text: Objectives To assess diagnostic agreement for occupational asthma, and to identify case and rater characteristics associated with this diagnosis. Methods Summaries of possible occupational asthma cases were sent to 104 occupational and respiratory physicians. Raters assigned likelihood scores (0-100%) of occupational asthma based on case histories (phase 1), and on histories plus investigative procedures (phase 2). Interclass correlation coefficients were calculated as statistical measures of reliability for occupational asthma scores. Comparisons between mean scores were assessed for statistical significance using tests based on multilevel models. RRs were calculated to summarise effects of raters' demographics, and of supplying investigative procedures information. Results Occupational asthma scores showed limited agreement within each group of (occupational or respiratory) physicians, but scores were not systematically different. The difference between mean overall scores was 2.1% (52.1% occupational physicians; 50.0% respiratory physicians) in phase 1 (95% CI -2.6 to 6.8, p=0.37). In phase 2, mean overall scores were 46.1% (occupational physicians) and 41.5% (respiratory physicians); the difference in mean overall scores was 4.6% (95% CI -3.5 to 12.5, p=0.27). Raters with General Medical Council registration >=1986 were more likely to give a positive occupational asthma diagnosis. In phase 2, male raters were more likely to label cases as occupational asthma than female raters (RR 4.5, 95% CI 3.3 to 6.0). Conclusions The RR of a positive occupational asthma diagnosis was unaffected by clinical speciality. Further work on why physicians consider cases to be occupational asthma will assist better diagnosis and prevention of this disease.

Full Text

Full text of this reference not available

Please Log In or Register to add the full text to this reference

Associated Questions

There are no associations for this paper.

Please Log In or Register to put forward this reference as evidence to a question.

Comments

Please sign in or register to add your thoughts.


Oasys and occupational asthma smoke logo