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
. 1980 Feb;37(1):63-9.
doi: 10.1136/oem.37.1.63.

Reproducibility of pulmonary function tests under laboratory and field conditions

Comparative Study

Reproducibility of pulmonary function tests under laboratory and field conditions

R G Love et al. Br J Ind Med. 1980 Feb.

Abstract

The reproducibility of pulmonary function tests in the laboratory and in a mobile field survey vehicle has been studied. Groups of laboratory workers were studied at base and a random sample of 38 coalminers was examined in the mobile laboratory. The intra-subject variability of some newer tests of lung function, including closing volume and maximum flow at low lung volumes, has been compared with that of well-established tests, such as lung volumes and forced expiratory volume from two measurements made more than one day apart. Most measurements were slightly less reproducible in the study of coalminers than in the laboratory personnel. Conventional tests, such as forced expiratory volume in one second, lung volumes, single breath CO transfer factor, and exercise ventilation were very reproducible, the coefficients of variation (cov) being generally between 5% and 10%. The closing volume test, maximum expiratory flow at low lung volumes, and the single breath N2 index were less reproducible: cov between 15% and 39% in the miners. The forced expired time and volume of isoflow, measured only on laboratory workers, however, exhibited greater reproducibility than previously reported (cov = 10% and 15% respectively). It is suggested that, when assessing the repeatability of lung function tests, account should be taken of the circumstances in which the intra-subject variability was measured.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Rev Inst Hyg Mines (Hasselt). 1975;30(1):1-51 - PubMed
    1. Thorax. 1954 Dec;9(4):313-25 - PubMed
    1. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1975 Sep;112(3):407-11 - PubMed
    1. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1975 Sep;112(3):401-5 - PubMed
    1. Lancet. 1965 Sep 18;2(7412):573-5 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources