A comparison of different methods of spirometric measurement selection

被引:7
|
作者
Koyama, H [1 ]
Nishimura, K [1 ]
Ikeda, A [1 ]
Tsukino, M [1 ]
Izumi, T [1 ]
机构
[1] Kyoto Univ, Chest Dis Res Inst, Sakyo Ku, Kyoto 606, Japan
关键词
D O I
10.1016/S0954-6111(98)90298-0
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
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 FEV(1)s 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.
引用
收藏
页码:498 / 504
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A comparison of alternative selection methods for reporting spirometric parameters in healthy adults
    Therkorn, Jennifer H.
    Toto, Daniella R.
    Falvo, Michael J.
    [J]. SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2021, 11 (01)
  • [2] A comparison of alternative selection methods for reporting spirometric parameters in healthy adults
    Jennifer H. Therkorn
    Daniella R. Toto
    Michael J. Falvo
    [J]. Scientific Reports, 11
  • [3] Comparison of different methods for variable selection
    Xu, L
    Zhang, WJ
    [J]. ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA, 2001, 446 (1-2) : 477 - 483
  • [4] Comparison of different measurement methods of magnetostriction
    Haraki, T
    Ishida, K
    Matsumura, Y
    Fujita, M
    Kuji, T
    Uchida, H
    [J]. SMART STRUCTURES, DEVICES, AND SYSTEMS, 2002, 4935 : 361 - 368
  • [5] Comparison of different measurement methods of cGMP
    Kremser, Marcel
    Winkler, Steffen
    Eitner, Frank
    Benardeau, Agnes
    Kraehling, Jan
    [J]. JOURNAL OF TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE, 2019, 17 (01)
  • [6] Comparison of different measurement techniques and variable selection methods for FT-MIR in wine analysis
    Friedel, Matthias
    Patz, Claus-Dieter
    Dietrich, Helmut
    [J]. FOOD CHEMISTRY, 2013, 141 (04) : 4200 - 4207
  • [7] COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT PH MEASUREMENT METHODS IN MEAT
    MAKIPETAYS, O
    KORKEALA, H
    ALANKO, T
    SORVETTULA, O
    [J]. ACTA VETERINARIA SCANDINAVICA, 1991, 32 (01) : 123 - 129
  • [8] A COMPARISON OF 2 DIFFERENT METHODS OF OTF MEASUREMENT
    YEADON, EC
    [J]. APPLIED OPTICS, 1969, 8 (12): : 2541 - &
  • [9] COMPARISON OF 2 DIFFERENT METHODS OF OTF MEASUREMENT
    YEADON, EC
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE OPTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, 1969, 59 (04) : 501 - &
  • [10] Comparison of different eggshell thickness measurement methods
    Arslan, Abdulkadir
    Yamak, Umut Sami
    [J]. TURKISH JOURNAL OF VETERINARY & ANIMAL SCIENCES, 2020, 44 (05): : 1150 - 1153