OBJECTIVE: Compare the results from a new screening spirometer (EasyOne) with the results from a standard laboratory spirometer (Vmax) approved by the American Thoracic Society. SETTING: A health fair at a community hospital. METHODS: We measured forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV(1)) and forced expiratory volume in the first 6 seconds (FEV(6)). With the screening spirometer, good quality testing was achieved in 359 of 394 subjects (91%), and 115 subjects were also tested with the standard laboratory spirometer. The best test values for FEV(1) and FEV(6) were taken for 3 tests that agreed within 3%. FEV(6) was extrapolated from forced vital capacity on the printouts from the standard laboratory spirometer. RESULTS: Correlations between the screening spirometer results and the standard laboratory spirometer were excellent for FEV(1) (r = 0.93), FEV(6) (r = 0.96), and FEV(1)/FEV(6) (r = 0.72) (p = 0.001 for all comparisons). The 95% limits of agreement (mean difference between the 2 spirometers +/- 1.96 standard deviations) were: -0.18 and 0.69 for FEV(1); -0.24 and 0.81 for FEV(6); and -0.12 and 0.13 for FEV(1)/FEV(6). CONCLUSION: The new screening spirometer is suitable for clinical use.
OBJECTIVE: Compare the results from a new screening spirometer (EasyOne) with the results from a standard laboratory spirometer (Vmax) approved by the American Thoracic Society. SETTING: A health fair at a community hospital. METHODS: We measured forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV(1)) and forced expiratory volume in the first 6 seconds (FEV(6)). With the screening spirometer, good quality testing was achieved in 359 of 394 subjects (91%), and 115 subjects were also tested with the standard laboratory spirometer. The best test values for FEV(1) and FEV(6) were taken for 3 tests that agreed within 3%. FEV(6) was extrapolated from forced vital capacity on the printouts from the standard laboratory spirometer. RESULTS: Correlations between the screening spirometer results and the standard laboratory spirometer were excellent for FEV(1) (r = 0.93), FEV(6) (r = 0.96), and FEV(1)/FEV(6) (r = 0.72) (p = 0.001 for all comparisons). The 95% limits of agreement (mean difference between the 2 spirometers +/- 1.96 standard deviations) were: -0.18 and 0.69 for FEV(1); -0.24 and 0.81 for FEV(6); and -0.12 and 0.13 for FEV(1)/FEV(6). CONCLUSION: The new screening spirometer is suitable for clinical use.
Authors: R Graham Barr; Kimberly J Stemple; Sonia Mesia-Vela; Robert C Basner; Susan J Derk; Paul K Henneberger; Donald K Milton; Brenda Taveras Journal: Respir Care Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 2.258
Authors: Manfred Blobner; Christiane G Frick; Roland B Stäuble; Hubertus Feussner; Stefan J Schaller; Christoph Unterbuchner; Charlotte Lingg; Martina Geisler; Heidrun Fink Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-08-15 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Jessica L Hudson; Jennifer M Bell; Traves D Crabtree; Daniel Kreisel; G Alexander Patterson; Bryan F Meyers; Varun Puri Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2017-11-20 Impact factor: 4.330