Longitudinal validity of spirometers--a challenge in longitudinal studies.

Details

Ressource 1Download: 16208589.pdf (214.98 [Ko])
State: Public
Version: Final published version
Serval ID
serval:BIB_B799B3C5773D
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
Longitudinal validity of spirometers--a challenge in longitudinal studies.
Journal
Swiss medical weekly
Author(s)
Künzli N., Kuna-Dibbert B., Keidel D., Keller R., Brändli O., Schindler C., Schweinzer K.M., Leuenberger P., Ackermann-Liebrich U.
Working group(s)
SAPALDIA team
ISSN
1424-7860 (Print)
ISSN-L
0036-7672
Publication state
Published
Issued date
20/08/2005
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
135
Number
33-34
Pages
503-508
Language
english
Notes
Publication types: Comparative Study ; Journal Article ; Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't ; Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
Publication Status: ppublish
Abstract
Pulmonary function testing (PFT) in longitudinal studies involves the repeated use of spirometers over long time periods. We assess the comparability of PFT results taken under biologic field conditions using thirteen certified devices of various technology and age. Comparability of measurements across devices and over time is relevant both in clinical and epidemiological research.
Forced Vital Capacity (FVC), Forced Expiratory Volume in the first second (FEV1) and Forced Expiratory Flow 50% (FEF50) were compared before and after the data collection of the Swiss Study on Air Pollution and Lung Diseases in Adults (SAPALDIA) and the European Community Respiratory Health Survey (ECRHS) cohort studies. Three test series were conducted with 46, 50 and 56 volunteers using various combinations of spirometers to compare the eight flow-sensing spirometers (Sensormedics 2200) used in the SAPALDIA cross-sectional and follow-up, two new flow-sensing instruments (Sensormedics Vmax) and three volume displacement spirometers (two Biomedin/Baires and one Sensormedics 2400).
The initial comparison (1999/2000) of eight Sensormedics 2200 and the follow-up comparison (2003) of the same devices revealed a maximal variation of up to 2.6% for FVC, 2.4% for FEV1 and 2.8% for FEF50 across devices with no indication of systematic differences between spirometers. Results were also reproducible between Biomedin, Sensormedics 2200 and 2400. The new generation of Sensormedics (Vmax) gave systematically lower results.
The study demonstrates the need to conduct spirometer comparison tests with humans. For follow-up studies we strongly recommend the use of the same spirometers.

Keywords
Adolescent, Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Forced Expiratory Flow Rates/physiology, Forced Expiratory Volume/physiology, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Reference Values, Reproducibility of Results, Spirometry, Vital Capacity/physiology
Pubmed
Web of science
Create date
25/01/2008 9:50
Last modification date
20/08/2019 15:25
Usage data