Background and Objective: Anxiety/depression and tuberculosis are global public health problems. The incidence of psychiatric morbidities is high among tuberculosis patients. However, little is known about the prevalence of anxiety and depression among Chinese pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) patients, especially those with tracheobronchial tuberculosis (TBTB). The goal of the present study was to explore the prevalence of and associated factors of anxiety and depressive symptoms among PTB patients with and without TBTB.Methods: A cross-sectional survey of PTB patients from three hospitals in Liaoning, China, was conducted using a structured questionnaire. Depression and anxiety were evaluated by using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9).Results: According to HADS and PHQ-9, 17.73 and 18.13% of 1252 PTB patients, respectively, had significant depressive symptoms and based on HADS scale, 18.37% had significant anxiety symptoms. Approximately 70% of patients with probable depression also had significant anxiety symptoms, and vice versa, and 69.6% patients with anxiety symptoms were also diagnosed with probable depression in our study population. Dyspnea and TBTB were significantly associated with depressive symptoms. Other depressive symptoms-related factors included age, divorce, abnormal body mass index (BMI), and low income. Patients with lower incomes, symptoms of dyspnea, or a combination of ≥3 clinical symptoms had an increased risk of anxiety symptoms, while patients with occasional or frequent alcohol consumption had a reduced risk of anxiety symptoms.Conclusion: Depressive and anxiety symptoms are common among PTB patients, especially those with TBTB. Screening for depression and anxiety is essential for identifying patients who require further psychosocial assessment and support.
PurposeThe sit-to-stand test (STST) has been used to evaluate the exercise tolerance of patients with COPD. However, mutual comparisons to predict poor exercise tolerance have been hindered by the variety of STST modes used in previous studies, which also did not consider patients’ subjective perceptions of different STST modes. Our aim was to compare the five-repetition sit-to-stand test (5STS) with the 30-second sit-to-stand test (30STS) for predicting poor performance in the six-minute walking test and to evaluate patients’ subjective perceptions to determine the optimal mode for clinical practice.Patients and methodsPatients with stable COPD performed 5STS, 30STS and the 6MWT and then evaluated their feelings about the two STST modes by Borg dyspnea score and a questionnaire. Moreover, we collected data through the pulmonary function test, mMRC dyspnea score, COPD assessment test and quadriceps muscle strength (QMS). A receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of the 5STS and 30STS results was used to predict 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) <350 m.ResultsThe final analysis included 128 patients. Similar moderate correlations were observed between 6MWT and 5STS (r=−0.508, P<0.001) and between 6MWT and 30STS (r=0.528, P<0.001), and there were similar correlations between QMS and 5STS (r=−0.401, P<0.001) and between QMS and 30STS (r=0.398, P<0.001). The 5STS and 30STS score cutoffs produced sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values of 76.0%, 62.8%, 56.7% and 80.3% (5STS) and 62.0%, 75.0%, 62.0% and 75.0% (30STS), respectively, for predicting poor 6MWT performance. The 5STS exhibited obvious superiority in terms of the completion rate and the subjective feelings of the participants.ConclusionAs a primary screening test for predicting poor 6MWD, the 5STS is similar to the 30STS in terms of sensitivity and specificity, but the 5STS has a better patient experience.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.