BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Advances in statistical modelling have allowed the creation of smoothly changing spirometry reference ranges that apply across a wide age range and better define the lower limit of normal. The objective of this study was to assess the agreement of the Stanojevic 2009 all-age reference ranges to contemporary lung function data to verify the appropriateness of this reference for clinical use in Australia and New Zealand. METHODS: Spirometry data from healthy Caucasians measured between 2000-2009 in Australia and New Zealand were collected. Z-scores were calculated for the standard spirometry outcomes based on the all-age reference ranges. RESULTS: Spirometry from 2066 subjects aged 4-80 years (55% male) from 14 centres were eligible. Statistically, the collated contemporary dataset differed from the all-age reference ranges, but these differences were relatively small and clinically irrelevant representing differences of approximately 3% predicted. Significant differences were also observed between some centres and equipment, potentially indicating varying influence of equipment or subject selection. CONCLUSIONS: Spirometry from contemporary Australasian healthy subjects fits the all-age reference ranges well. While the current study supports the use of the all-age reference ranges, the between-centre differences highlight the need for spirometry to be used in conjunction with other clinical findings.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Advances in statistical modelling have allowed the creation of smoothly changing spirometry reference ranges that apply across a wide age range and better define the lower limit of normal. The objective of this study was to assess the agreement of the Stanojevic 2009 all-age reference ranges to contemporary lung function data to verify the appropriateness of this reference for clinical use in Australia and New Zealand. METHODS: Spirometry data from healthy Caucasians measured between 2000-2009 in Australia and New Zealand were collected. Z-scores were calculated for the standard spirometry outcomes based on the all-age reference ranges. RESULTS: Spirometry from 2066 subjects aged 4-80 years (55% male) from 14 centres were eligible. Statistically, the collated contemporary dataset differed from the all-age reference ranges, but these differences were relatively small and clinically irrelevant representing differences of approximately 3% predicted. Significant differences were also observed between some centres and equipment, potentially indicating varying influence of equipment or subject selection. CONCLUSIONS: Spirometry from contemporary Australasian healthy subjects fits the all-age reference ranges well. While the current study supports the use of the all-age reference ranges, the between-centre differences highlight the need for spirometry to be used in conjunction with other clinical findings.
Authors: Jonathan Witonsky; Jennifer R Elhawary; Celeste Eng; José R Rodríguez-Santana; Luisa N Borrell; Esteban G Burchard Journal: Chest Date: 2022-01-13 Impact factor: 10.262
Authors: Yixin Shi; Ahramahzd V Tatavoosian; Anna S Aledia; Steven C George; Stanley P Galant Journal: Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol Date: 2012-07-04 Impact factor: 6.347
Authors: Rebeca Mozun; Cristina Ardura-Garcia; Eva S L Pedersen; Jakob Usemann; Florian Singer; Philipp Latzin; Alexander Moeller; Claudia E Kuehni Journal: ERJ Open Res Date: 2022-04-19
Authors: Timothy Howarth; Helmi Ben Saad; Ara J Perez; Charmain B Atos; Elisha White; Subash S Heraganahally Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-04-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Andrew J Collaro; Anne B Chang; Julie M Marchant; Mark D Chatfield; Annette Dent; Tamara Blake; Patsi Mawn; Kwun Fong; Margaret S McElrea Journal: Lung Date: 2021-07-03 Impact factor: 2.584