Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2010 May;65(5):469-74.
doi: 10.1590/S1807-59322010000500003.

Comparison of five portable peak flow meters

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of five portable peak flow meters

Glaucia Nency Takara et al. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2010 May.

Abstract

Objective: To compare the measurements of spirometric peak expiratory flow (PEF) from five different PEF meters and to determine if their values are in agreement. Inaccurate equipment may result in incorrect diagnoses of asthma and inappropriate treatments.

Methods: Sixty-eight healthy, sedentary and insufficiently active subjects, aged from 19 to 40 years, performed PEF measurements using Air Zone, Assess, Galemed, Personal Best and Vitalograph peak flow meters. The highest value recorded for each subject for each device was compared to the corresponding spirometric values using Friedman's test with Dunn's post-hoc (p<0.05), Spearman's correlation test and Bland-Altman's agreement test.

Results: The median and interquartile ranges for the spirometric values and the Air Zone, Assess, Galemed, Personal Best and Vitalograph meters were 428 (263-688 L/min), 450 (350-800 L/min), 420 (310-720 L/min), 380 (300-735 L/min), 400 (310-685 L/min) and 415 (335-610 L/min), respectively. Significant differences were found when the spirometric values were compared to those recorded by the Air Zone(R) (p<0.001) and Galemed (p<0.01) meters. There was no agreement between the spirometric values and the five PEF meters.

Conclusions: The results suggest that the values recorded from Galemed meters may underestimate the actual value, which could lead to unnecessary interventions, and that Air Zone meters overestimate spirometric values, which could obfuscate the need for intervention. These findings must be taken into account when interpreting both devices' results in younger people. These differences should also be considered when directly comparing values from different types of PEF meters.

Keywords: Airway obstruction; Asthma; Meters; Monitoring; Peak expiratory flow rate.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Peak expiratory flow median values and interquartile ranges referring to the spirometry and the five meters. Friedman’s Test, Dunn’s post-hoc, **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Agreement rate between PEF spirometric values and those of the Air Zone® meter (A); the Assess® meter (B); the Galemed® meter (C); the Personal Best® meter (D); and the Vitalograph® meter (E) according to a Bland-Altman analysis. PEF = peak expiratory flow; Bias = mean of the differences among the averages; SD = standard deviation; n = number of subjects; ±1.96SD= 95% of confidence interval (CI). Orange line = regression line of differences versus averages; blue line= 95% CI of limits of agreement; brown dashed line= 95% CI mean of differences.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Chiaramonte LT, Prabhu SL. Comparative evaluation of five peak flow devices. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1982;69:509–15. - PubMed
    1. Miller MR, Quanjer PH. Peak flow meters: a problem of scale. B M J. 1994;308:548–9. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cruz AA. Peak expiratory flow. It’s better to measure! J Bras Pneumol. 2006;32:4–6. - PubMed
    1. Pistelli R, Fuso L, Muzzolon R, Bevignani G, Patalano F, Ciappi G. Comparison of the performance of two mini peak flow meters. Respiration. 1989;56:103–9. - PubMed
    1. Miller MR, Dickinson SA, Hitchings DJ. The accuracy of portable peak flow meters. Thorax. 1992;47:904–09. - PMC - PubMed