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
. 2022 Mar 5;22(1):80.
doi: 10.1186/s12890-022-01872-9.

Validity of a portable spirometer in the communities of China

Shan Xiao #  1 , Fan Wu #  1 , Zihui Wang #  1 , Jianmin Chen  2 , Huajing Yang  1 , Youlan Zheng  1 , Zhishan Deng  1 , Jieqi Peng  1 , Xiang Wen  1 , Peiyu Huang  1 , Cuiqiong Dai  1 , Lifei Lu  1 , Ningning Zhao  1 , Pixin Ran  3 , Yumin Zhou  4
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Validity of a portable spirometer in the communities of China

Shan Xiao et al. BMC Pulm Med. .

Abstract

Background: The lack of simple and affordable spirometry has led to the missed and delayed diagnoses of chronic respiratory diseases in communities. The PUS201P is a portable spirometry developed to solve this problem.

Objective: We aimed to verify the consistency of the PUS201P spirometer with conventional Jaeger spirometer.

Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we randomly recruited 202 subjects aged > 40 years. Testing with the portable spirometry and conventional spirometry were performed on all participants. We compared forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), FEV1/FVC measured by the PUS201P device with the conventional spirometer. Pearson correlation coefficient and Interclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) were assessed to confirm the consistency of the measures from two instruments. Bland-Altman graph was created to assess the agreement of the measures from two devices.

Results: 202 participants were included in this study. The ICC on FEV1, FVC, FEV1/FVC measured by the portable spirometer and the conventional spirometer were 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94-0.96), 0.92 (95% CI: 0.90-0.94], 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91-0.95), respectively. The Bland-Altman plots showed that the mean difference between the measures from two spirometers are always located in the 95% limits of agreement.

Conclusions: Our results support that the measures from the portable spirometer and the conventional spirometer have a good agreement and reproducibility. And the portable spirometer is a reliable tool to screen and diagnose chronic airway diseases in the primary care settings.

Keywords: Chronic airway diseases; Consistency; Portable spirometry; Validity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All of the authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The portable spirometer appearance, work interface and quality control platform. FVC forced vital capacity; FEV1 forced expiratory volume in one second; PEF peak expiratory flow; MMEF maximum mid-expiratory flow; FEV3 forced expiratory volume in three seconds
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Correlation plots between the values obtained from the two spirometers, for the spirometric parameters considered in this research. FEV1 forced expiratory volume in one second; FVC forced vital capacity; MMEF maximum mid-expiratory flow; PEF peak expiratory flow; FEF25 forced expiratory flow after 25% of FVC has been exhaled; FEF50 forced expiratory flow after 50% of FVC has been exhaled; FEF75 forced expiratory flow after 75% of FVC has been exhaled. Note * = measured by the portable spirometer; ** = measured by the conventional spirometer
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Bland–Altman plots for the evaluated spirometric parameters: FEV1, FVC, FEV1/FVC, MMEF, PEF, FEF25, FEF50, FEF75. Dashed lines represent the mean difference between measurements and dotted lines the 95% limits of agreement. FEV1 forced expiratory volume in one second; FVC forced vital capacity; MMEF maximum mid-expiratory flow; PEF peak expiratory flow; FEF25 forced expiratory flow after 25% of FVC has been exhaled; FEF50 forced expiratory flow after 50% of FVC has been exhaled; FEF75 forced expiratory flow after 75% of FVC has been exhaled. Note * = measured by the portable spirometer; ** = measured by the conventional spirometer
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Wheatley JR. Spirometry: key to the diagnosis of respiratory disorders. Med J Aust. 2017;207(10):422–423. doi: 10.5694/mja17.00684. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pauwels RA, Buist AS, Calverley PM, Jenkins CR, Hurd SS. Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. NHLBI/WHO Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Workshop summary. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2001;163(5):1256–76. - PubMed
    1. Celli BR. The importance of spirometry in COPD and asthma: effect on approach to management. Chest. 2000;117(2 Suppl):15s–s19. doi: 10.1378/chest.117.2_suppl.15S. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Soriano JB, Zielinski J, Price D. Screening for and early detection of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Lancet. 2009;374(9691):721–732. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61290-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. GBD 2017 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2018;392(10159):1789–858. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources