Evaluation of spirometry reference equations among healthy Jordanian adults: a comparative analysis of Jordanian and the Global Lung Initiative equations.

IF 2.7
Walid Al-Qerem
{"title":"Evaluation of spirometry reference equations among healthy Jordanian adults: a comparative analysis of Jordanian and the Global Lung Initiative equations.","authors":"Walid Al-Qerem","doi":"10.1080/17476348.2025.2527382","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Accurate spirometry interpretation requires reference equations tailored to the target population. This study evaluated the performance and diagnostic agreement of the locally developed 2018 Jordanian equation and the Global Lung Initiative (GLI) global (2022), GLI-2012 Caucasian, and GLI-2012 Other/Mixed equations among healthy adult Jordanians.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>In this cross-sectional study, healthy nonsmoking Jordanian adults aged ≥ 18 years were recruited from various regions. Spirometry and anthropometric data were collected. Each equation's suitability was assessed using mean z-score deviations from zero and standard deviations from one (via t-tests and chi-square tests). Linear and quantile regressions examined relationships between anthropometrics and lung function. Diagnostic agreement was evaluated using Cohen's kappa and frequency of classification shifts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 799 participants (400 males), the Jordanian equation showed the best fit, with mean z-scores closest to zero and standard deviations near one. GLI global (2022) and GLI-2012 equations showed significant deviations (<i>p</i> < 0.001), mainly due to age-related bias. Agreement was highest between GLI global (2022) and GLI-2012 Other/Mixed; GLI-2012 Caucasian classified the fewest as normal.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Jordanian equation provided better accuracy than GLI equations. Its use in practice may reduce misclassification and improve respiratory disease management, underscoring the value of population-specific standards.</p>","PeriodicalId":94007,"journal":{"name":"Expert review of respiratory medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert review of respiratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17476348.2025.2527382","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Accurate spirometry interpretation requires reference equations tailored to the target population. This study evaluated the performance and diagnostic agreement of the locally developed 2018 Jordanian equation and the Global Lung Initiative (GLI) global (2022), GLI-2012 Caucasian, and GLI-2012 Other/Mixed equations among healthy adult Jordanians.

Research design and methods: In this cross-sectional study, healthy nonsmoking Jordanian adults aged ≥ 18 years were recruited from various regions. Spirometry and anthropometric data were collected. Each equation's suitability was assessed using mean z-score deviations from zero and standard deviations from one (via t-tests and chi-square tests). Linear and quantile regressions examined relationships between anthropometrics and lung function. Diagnostic agreement was evaluated using Cohen's kappa and frequency of classification shifts.

Results: Among 799 participants (400 males), the Jordanian equation showed the best fit, with mean z-scores closest to zero and standard deviations near one. GLI global (2022) and GLI-2012 equations showed significant deviations (p < 0.001), mainly due to age-related bias. Agreement was highest between GLI global (2022) and GLI-2012 Other/Mixed; GLI-2012 Caucasian classified the fewest as normal.

Conclusion: The Jordanian equation provided better accuracy than GLI equations. Its use in practice may reduce misclassification and improve respiratory disease management, underscoring the value of population-specific standards.

评价健康约旦成年人的肺活量测定参考方程:约旦和全球肺主动方程的比较分析
背景:准确的肺活量测定解释需要针对目标人群量身定制的参考方程。本研究评估了当地开发的2018约旦方程和全球肺倡议(GLI)全球(2022)、GLI-2012高加索和GLI-2012其他/混合方程在健康约旦成年人中的表现和诊断一致性。研究设计和方法:在本横断面研究中,从不同地区招募年龄≥18岁的健康不吸烟的约旦成年人。收集肺活量测定和人体测量数据。每个方程的适用性评估使用平均z得分偏差从零和标准差从一(通过t检验和卡方检验)。线性和分位数回归检验了人体测量学和肺功能之间的关系。采用Cohen’s kappa和分类移位频率评估诊断一致性。结果:在799名参与者(400名男性)中,约旦方程显示出最佳拟合,平均z分数接近于零,标准差接近于1。GLI global(2022)和GLI-2012方程存在显著偏差(p)。结论:Jordanian方程比GLI方程具有更好的准确性。在实践中使用该标准可减少误分类并改善呼吸系统疾病管理,强调了针对特定人群的标准的价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信