Selection of the best spirometric values for interpretation
- PMID: 7447162
- DOI: 10.1164/arrd.1980.122.5.802
Selection of the best spirometric values for interpretation
Abstract
Selection of spirometric test values for reporting and interpretation has recently received considerable attention. In 1977, the American Thoracic Society (ATS) Snowbird Workshop on Standardization of Spirometry recommended that the maximal values for FVC and FEV1 be used for clinical interpretation, even if they came from different spirometric tracings. The Intermountain Thoracic Society (ITS) had recommended in 1975 that FVC and FEV1, be reported from the single tracings, using the largest sum of FVC plus FEV1 (best test). We evaluated the results of 1,853 spirometric test sessions in 1,101 subjects (923 hospital patients and 178 normal volunteers). The mean difference between the 2 test selection methods cited above was 5.8 ml for FVC and 8.4 ml for FEV1. In 98.4% of the FVC comparisons and 95.7% of the FEV1 comparisons, the differences were within the minimal instrument accuracy standard (+/- 50 ml or +/- 3% of the reading) suggested by the ATS. Differences between maximal and best test FVC and FEV1 were small. The selection of values for interpretation from the best test did not compromise accuracy, and was a simpler and more practical method for reporting clinical spirometric results.
Similar articles
-
A comparison of different methods of spirometric measurement selection.Respir Med. 1998 Mar;92(3):498-504. doi: 10.1016/s0954-6111(98)90298-0. Respir Med. 1998. PMID: 9692112
-
Effect of effort versus volume on forced expiratory flow measurement.Am Rev Respir Dis. 1988 Oct;138(4):1002-5. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm/138.4.1002. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1988. PMID: 3202427
-
Selection of spirometric measurements in a clinical trial, the Lung Health Study.Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995 Mar;151(3 Pt 1):675-81. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.151.3.7881655. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995. PMID: 7881655 Clinical Trial.
-
Lower limit of normal or FEV1/FVC < 0.70 in diagnosing COPD: an evidence-based review.Respir Med. 2011 Jun;105(6):907-15. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2011.01.008. Epub 2011 Feb 5. Respir Med. 2011. PMID: 21295958 Review.
-
Development and Validation of an Algorithm for Quality Grading of Pediatric Spirometry: A Quality Improvement Initiative.Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2022 Jan;19(1):74-81. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202103-382QI. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2022. PMID: 34343027 Review.
Cited by
-
A comparison of alternative selection methods for reporting spirometric parameters in healthy adults.Sci Rep. 2021 Jul 22;11(1):14945. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-94120-9. Sci Rep. 2021. PMID: 34294734 Free PMC article.
-
The HELP system.J Med Syst. 1983 Apr;7(2):87-102. doi: 10.1007/BF00995116. J Med Syst. 1983. PMID: 6688267 No abstract available.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources