Search

Objective: To compare the strengths and limitations of the old and revised guidelines for the diagnosis in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis(IPF)., Methods: Patients who were admitted and diagnosed as interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) in our hospital from 2009 to 2014 were enrolled in our study.Eachpatient was reevaluated respectively according to the old and revised guidelines of IPF., Results: A total of 553 cases were initially reviewed, among whom 355 cases were excluded for pulmonary fibrosis secondary to definite underlying diseases, 28 excluded due to high resolution computed tomography(HRCT) not done, 26 excluded because serum immunology examination was not available.The remaining 144 cases were finally enrolled in this study including 92 males and 52 females with median age 21-92 (68 ± 11) years old. Twenty five patients (17.4%, 25/144) met the diagnostic criteria of IPF by the old guideline.While by the revised guideline, 53 patients (36.8%, 53/144) were diagnosed as classical IPF, 29 patients(20.1%, 29/144) as probable cases, another 69 non-IPF patients accounting for 43.1% (62/144). The result revealed that there's a significant difference between the two guidelines in the diagnosis of IPF., Conclusions: The revised guideline favors an early diagnosis of IPF and simplifies the diagnostic process.However the possibility of over diagnosis or missed diagnosis by the revised guideline does exist.On the other hand, despite of the delayed diagnosis by the old guideline, it may reduce the misdiagnosis of IPF in some circumstance.