Literature DB >> 9692112

A comparison of different methods of spirometric measurement selection.

H Koyama1, K Nishimura, A Ikeda, M Tsukino, T Izumi.   

Abstract

The American Thoracic Society (ATS) and the European Respiratory Society (ERS) recommend that the largest forced vital capacity (FVC) and the largest forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) should be recorded from at least three acceptable curves independently which curve they came from. Although these recommendations have been used for decades, there is still some controversy over their validity. The purpose of this study was to determine how the intersession variability of reported FVC and FEV1 values is influenced by different methods of selection in clinical practice. The study population consisted of 283 patients with obstructive airway diseases. Spirometry was performed until three acceptable forced expiratory curves were obtained in the standing position. A second set of spirometric measurements was obtained approximately 30 min after the first set of measurements. The following sampling methods were compared: method A, the largest FVC and the largest FEV1 among all three acceptable curves (ATS-ERS recommendation); method B, the FVC and the FEV1 from the single curve that yielded the largest sum of FVC plus FEV1 (best test); method C, the average of all three acceptable curves; method D, the average of the largest two FVCs and FEV1s among all of the three acceptable curves. FVC and FEV1 determined by method B gave almost identical values to those obtained by method A in most cases. However, method A was least variable for FEV1. In addition, the differences in FEV1 values between these two methods were large in some of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The other selection criteria compared in this study offer no clear-cut advantages over method A. The ATS ERS recommended method appeared to be slightly more reproducible than the other selection criteria, including the 'best test' method, and should therefore be the preferred method of choice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9692112     DOI: 10.1016/s0954-6111(98)90298-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Respir Med        ISSN: 0954-6111            Impact factor:   3.415


  5 in total

1.  Quality of routine spirometry tests in Dutch general practices.

Authors:  Tjard R J Schermer; Alan J Crockett; Patrick J P Poels; Jacob J van Dijke; Reinier P Akkermans; Hans F Vlek; Willem R Pieters
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 2.  Accuracy of portable spirometers in the diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Na Yu; Wei Wang; Jiawei Zhou; Xiaomeng Li; Xingjian Wang
Journal:  NPJ Prim Care Respir Med       Date:  2022-04-19       Impact factor: 3.289

3.  Active case finding strategy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with handheld spirometry.

Authors:  Joo Kyung Kim; Chang Min Lee; Ji Young Park; Joo Hee Kim; Sung-Hoon Park; Seung Hun Jang; Ki-Suck Jung; Kwang Ha Yoo; Yong Bum Park; Chin Kook Rhee; Deog Kyeom Kim; Yong Il Hwang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 1.889

4.  How different are COPD-specific patient reported outcomes, health status, dyspnoea and respiratory symptoms? An observational study in a working population.

Authors:  Koichi Nishimura; Toru Oga; Kazuhito Nakayasu; Miyoko Ogasawara; Yoshinori Hasegawa; Satoshi Mitsuma
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-07-24       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  COPD and disease-specific health status in a working population.

Authors:  Koichi Nishimura; Satoshi Mitsuma; Atsuko Kobayashi; Mikako Yanagida; Kazuhito Nakayasu; Yoshinori Hasegawa; Paul W Jones
Journal:  Respir Res       Date:  2013-06-02
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.