Imran H Iftikhar1, Meredith Greer2, Ahmadu Jaiteh2. 1. Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care & Sleep Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, 613 Michael St, NE, Atlanta, GA, USA. imran.hasan.iftikhar@emory.edu. 2. Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care & Sleep Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, 613 Michael St, NE, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) is very common in athletes. Cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPET) have traditionally been used for the diagnosis of EIB. However, alternative indirect bronchoprovocation tests have recently been used as surrogate tests. One of these is the eucapnic voluntary hyperventilation (EVH). This meta-analysis studied the agreement between the two tests. METHODS: An extensive search in PubMed and Medline was conducted for studies where participants underwent both CPET and EVH with measurement of forced expiratory volume in 1-second (FEV1). After extracting data using two-by-two contingency tables, pooled positive and negative agreements were first calculated between the two tests, with EVH benchmarked against CPET, and then, pooled positive and negative agreements were calculated with CPET benchmarked against EVH. RESULTS: The pooled positive and negative agreements between EVH and CPET (with CPET as the reference) were 0.62 [(95% confidence interval 0.54-0.70), I2 77%] and 0.61 [(0.56-0.65)), I2 81%]. The pooled positive and negative agreements between CPET and EVH (with EVH as the reference) were 0.36 [(0.30-0.42), I2 93%] and 0.82 [(0.77-0.86), I2 78%]. The average of positive test results with EVH across all studies was greater than that of CPETs (58.84% vs. 39.51%). CONCLUSIONS: Results of this meta-analysis show poor positive agreement between the two tests but high negative agreement (specifically using EVH as reference), suggesting that either test can be used for correctly identifying those without EIB. Results also suggest that the chances of a test resulting positive are higher with EVH than with CPET.
INTRODUCTION: Exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) is very common in athletes. Cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPET) have traditionally been used for the diagnosis of EIB. However, alternative indirect bronchoprovocation tests have recently been used as surrogate tests. One of these is the eucapnic voluntary hyperventilation (EVH). This meta-analysis studied the agreement between the two tests. METHODS: An extensive search in PubMed and Medline was conducted for studies where participants underwent both CPET and EVH with measurement of forced expiratory volume in 1-second (FEV1). After extracting data using two-by-two contingency tables, pooled positive and negative agreements were first calculated between the two tests, with EVH benchmarked against CPET, and then, pooled positive and negative agreements were calculated with CPET benchmarked against EVH. RESULTS: The pooled positive and negative agreements between EVH and CPET (with CPET as the reference) were 0.62 [(95% confidence interval 0.54-0.70), I2 77%] and 0.61 [(0.56-0.65)), I2 81%]. The pooled positive and negative agreements between CPET and EVH (with EVH as the reference) were 0.36 [(0.30-0.42), I2 93%] and 0.82 [(0.77-0.86), I2 78%]. The average of positive test results with EVH across all studies was greater than that of CPETs (58.84% vs. 39.51%). CONCLUSIONS: Results of this meta-analysis show poor positive agreement between the two tests but high negative agreement (specifically using EVH as reference), suggesting that either test can be used for correctly identifying those without EIB. Results also suggest that the chances of a test resulting positive are higher with EVH than with CPET.
Authors: John M Weiler; Sandra D Anderson; Christopher Randolph; Sergio Bonini; Timothy J Craig; David S Pearlman; Kenneth W Rundell; William S Silvers; William W Storms; David I Bernstein; Joann Blessing-Moore; Linda Cox; David A Khan; David M Lang; Richard A Nicklas; John Oppenheimer; Jay M Portnoy; Diane E Schuller; Sheldon L Spector; Stephen A Tilles; Dana Wallace; William Henderson; Lawrence Schwartz; David Kaufman; Talal Nsouli; Lawrence Shieken; Nelson Rosario Journal: Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 6.347
Authors: Janneke C van Leeuwen; Jean M M Driessen; Elin T G Kersten; Bernard J Thio Journal: Immunol Allergy Clin North Am Date: 2013-03-27 Impact factor: 3.479
Authors: S D Anderson; S Lambert; J D Brannan; R J Wood; H Koskela; A R Morton; K D Fitch Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Kenneth D Fitch; Malcolm Sue-Chu; Sandra D Anderson; Louis-Philippe Boulet; Robert J Hancox; Donald C McKenzie; Vibeke Backer; Kenneth W Rundell; Juan M Alonso; Pascale Kippelen; Joseph M Cummiskey; Alain Garnier; Arne Ljungqvist Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Karoline Freeman; Alexander Tsertsvadze; Sian Taylor-Phillips; Noel McCarthy; Hema Mistry; Rohini Manuel; James Mason Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-03-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: José Ângelo Rizzo; Laienne Carla Barbosa de Barros Albuquerque; Décio Medeiros; Claudio Gonsalves de Albuquerque; Edil de Albuquerque Rodrigues Filho; Marcos André de Moura Santos; Steve Hunter; Nadia Gaua; Marco Aurélio Valois de Correia Junior Journal: Lung Date: 2022-02-23 Impact factor: 2.584