OBJECTIVE: Portable lung function logging meters that allow measurement of peak expiratory flow (PEF) and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) are useful for the diagnosis and exclusion of asthma. The aim of this study was to investigate the within and between-session variability of PEF and FEV(1) for four logging meters and to determine the sensitivity of meters to detect FEV(1) and PEF diurnal changes. METHODS: Thirteen assessors (all hospital staff members) were asked to record 1 week of 2-hour PEF and FEV(1) measurements using four portable lung function meters. Within-session variability of PEF and FEV(1) were compared for each meter using a coefficient of variation (COV). Between-session variability was quantified using parameter estimates from a cosinor analysis which modeled diurnal change for both lung function measures and also allowed for variation between days for individual sessions. RESULTS: The mean within-session COV for FEV(1) was consistently lower than that for PEF (p < 0.001). PEF showed a higher but not significantly different (p = 0.068) sensitivity for detecting diurnal variation than FEV(1). PEF was also slightly more variable between days, but not significantly different than FEV(1) (p = 0.409). PEF and FEV(1) diurnal variability did not differ between the 4 meters (p = 0.154 and 0.882 respectively), but within-session FEV(1) COV differed between meters (p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: PEF was marginally more sensitive to within-day variability than FEV(1) but was less repeatable. Overall, differences between the 4 meters were small, suggesting that all meters are clinically useful.
OBJECTIVE: Portable lung function logging meters that allow measurement of peak expiratory flow (PEF) and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) are useful for the diagnosis and exclusion of asthma. The aim of this study was to investigate the within and between-session variability of PEF and FEV(1) for four logging meters and to determine the sensitivity of meters to detect FEV(1) and PEF diurnal changes. METHODS: Thirteen assessors (all hospital staff members) were asked to record 1 week of 2-hour PEF and FEV(1) measurements using four portable lung function meters. Within-session variability of PEF and FEV(1) were compared for each meter using a coefficient of variation (COV). Between-session variability was quantified using parameter estimates from a cosinor analysis which modeled diurnal change for both lung function measures and also allowed for variation between days for individual sessions. RESULTS: The mean within-session COV for FEV(1) was consistently lower than that for PEF (p < 0.001). PEF showed a higher but not significantly different (p = 0.068) sensitivity for detecting diurnal variation than FEV(1). PEF was also slightly more variable between days, but not significantly different than FEV(1) (p = 0.409). PEF and FEV(1) diurnal variability did not differ between the 4 meters (p = 0.154 and 0.882 respectively), but within-session FEV(1) COV differed between meters (p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: PEF was marginally more sensitive to within-day variability than FEV(1) but was less repeatable. Overall, differences between the 4 meters were small, suggesting that all meters are clinically useful.
Authors: Gary Parkes; Annette Plüddemann; Carl Heneghan; Christopher P Price; Jane Wolstenholme; Matthew Thompson Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Kristen M C Malecki; Maria Nikodemova; Amy A Schultz; Tamara J LeCaire; Andrew J Bersch; Lisa Cadmus-Bertram; Corinne D Engelman; Erika Hagen; Mari Palta; Ajay K Sethi; Matt C Walsh; F Javier Nieto; Paul E Peppard Journal: medRxiv Date: 2021-04-07
Authors: Amanda J Oliver; Ronina A Covar; Caroline H Goldfrad; Ryan M Klein; Søren E Pedersen; Christine A Sorkness; Susan A Tomkins; César Villarán; Jonathan Grigg Journal: Respir Res Date: 2016-04-05