Lung Function Monitoring; A Randomized Agreement Study.

Q3 Medicine
Open Respiratory Medicine Journal Pub Date : 2016-07-29 eCollection Date: 2016-01-01 DOI:10.2174/1874306401610010051
Sveinung Berntsen, Solvor B Stølevik, Petter Mowinckel, Wenche Nystad, Trine Stensrud
{"title":"Lung Function Monitoring; A Randomized Agreement Study.","authors":"Sveinung Berntsen, Solvor B Stølevik, Petter Mowinckel, Wenche Nystad, Trine Stensrud","doi":"10.2174/1874306401610010051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To determine the agreement between devices and repeatability within devices of the forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), peak expiratory flow (PEF) and forced expiratory flow at 50% of FVC (FEF50) values measured using the four spirometers included in the study. Methods: 50 (24 women) participants (20-64 years of age) completed maximum forced expiratory flow manoeuvres and measurements were performed using the following devices: MasterScreen, SensorMedics, Oxycon Pro and SpiroUSB. The order of the instruments tested was randomized and blinded for both the participants and the technicians. Re-testing was conducted on a following day within 72 hours at the same time of the day. Results: The devices which obtained the most comparable values for all lung function variables were SensorMedics and Oxycon Pro, and MasterScreen and SpiroUSB. For FEV1, mean difference was 0.04 L (95% confidence interval; -0.05, 0.14) and 0.00 L (-0.06, 0.06), respectively. When using the criterion of FVC and FEV1 ≤ 0.150 L for acceptable repeatability, 67% of the comparisons of the measured lung function values obtained by the four devices were acceptable. Overall, Oxycon Pro obtained most frequently values of the lung function variables with highest precision as indicated by the coefficients of repeatability (CR), followed by MasterScreen, SensorMedics and SpiroUSB (e.g. min-max CR for FEV1; 0.27-0.46). Conclusion: The present study confirms that measurements obtained by the same device at different times can be compared; however, measured lung function values may differ depending on spirometers used.","PeriodicalId":39127,"journal":{"name":"Open Respiratory Medicine Journal","volume":"10 ","pages":"51-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/b6/e3/TORMJ-10-51.PMC4981697.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Respiratory Medicine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1874306401610010051","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Objective: To determine the agreement between devices and repeatability within devices of the forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), peak expiratory flow (PEF) and forced expiratory flow at 50% of FVC (FEF50) values measured using the four spirometers included in the study. Methods: 50 (24 women) participants (20-64 years of age) completed maximum forced expiratory flow manoeuvres and measurements were performed using the following devices: MasterScreen, SensorMedics, Oxycon Pro and SpiroUSB. The order of the instruments tested was randomized and blinded for both the participants and the technicians. Re-testing was conducted on a following day within 72 hours at the same time of the day. Results: The devices which obtained the most comparable values for all lung function variables were SensorMedics and Oxycon Pro, and MasterScreen and SpiroUSB. For FEV1, mean difference was 0.04 L (95% confidence interval; -0.05, 0.14) and 0.00 L (-0.06, 0.06), respectively. When using the criterion of FVC and FEV1 ≤ 0.150 L for acceptable repeatability, 67% of the comparisons of the measured lung function values obtained by the four devices were acceptable. Overall, Oxycon Pro obtained most frequently values of the lung function variables with highest precision as indicated by the coefficients of repeatability (CR), followed by MasterScreen, SensorMedics and SpiroUSB (e.g. min-max CR for FEV1; 0.27-0.46). Conclusion: The present study confirms that measurements obtained by the same device at different times can be compared; however, measured lung function values may differ depending on spirometers used.

Abstract Image

肺功能监测;一项随机一致研究。
目的:确定四种肺活量计在1秒内用力呼气量(FEV1)、用力肺活量(FVC)、呼气峰流量(PEF)和50% FVC时用力呼气流量(FEF50)测量值的一致性和设备内的重复性。方法:50名(24名女性)参与者(20-64岁)完成最大用力呼气流量操作,并使用以下设备进行测量:MasterScreen, SensorMedics, Oxycon Pro和SpiroUSB。测试仪器的顺序对参与者和技术人员都是随机和盲法的。在第二天的同一时间,在72小时内进行了重新测试。结果:在所有肺功能变量上获得最可比性值的设备是SensorMedics和Oxycon Pro,以及MasterScreen和SpiroUSB。FEV1平均差值为0.04 L(95%置信区间;-0.05, 0.14)和0.00 L(-0.06, 0.06)。当以FVC和FEV1≤0.150 L为可接受重复性标准时,四种仪器测得的肺功能值比较有67%可接受。总体而言,根据可重复性系数(CR), Oxycon Pro获得最频繁的肺功能变量值,精度最高,其次是MasterScreen、SensorMedics和SpiroUSB(例如,FEV1的最小最大CR;0.27 - -0.46)。结论:本研究证实了同一装置在不同时间测量结果的可比性;然而,测量的肺功能值可能因使用的肺活量计而异。
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
Open Respiratory Medicine Journal
Open Respiratory Medicine Journal Medicine-Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The Open Respiratory Medicine Journal is an Open Access online journal, which publishes research articles, reviews/mini-reviews, letters and guest edited single topic issues in all important areas of experimental and clinical research in respiratory medicine. Topics covered include: -COPD- Occupational disorders, and the role of allergens and pollutants- Asthma- Allergy- Non-invasive ventilation- Therapeutic intervention- Lung cancer- Lung infections respiratory diseases- Therapeutic interventions- Adult and paediatric medicine- Cell biology. The Open Respiratory Medicine Journal, a peer reviewed journal, is an important and reliable source of current information on important recent developments in the field. The emphasis will be on publishing quality articles rapidly and making them freely available worldwide.
×
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