{"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.
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.