Cargando…

Unsupervised home spirometry versus supervised clinic spirometry for respiratory disease: a systematic methodology review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: The number of patients completing unsupervised home spirometry has recently increased due to more widely available portable technology and the COVID-19 pandemic, despite a lack of solid evidence to support it. This systematic methodology review and meta-analysis explores quantitative dif...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Anand, Rohan, McLeese, Rebecca, Busby, John, Stewart, Jonathan, Clarke, Mike, Man, William D-C., Bradley, Judy
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: European Respiratory Society 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10481332/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37673426
http://dx.doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0248-2022
_version_ 1785101953040121856
author Anand, Rohan
McLeese, Rebecca
Busby, John
Stewart, Jonathan
Clarke, Mike
Man, William D-C.
Bradley, Judy
author_facet Anand, Rohan
McLeese, Rebecca
Busby, John
Stewart, Jonathan
Clarke, Mike
Man, William D-C.
Bradley, Judy
author_sort Anand, Rohan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The number of patients completing unsupervised home spirometry has recently increased due to more widely available portable technology and the COVID-19 pandemic, despite a lack of solid evidence to support it. This systematic methodology review and meta-analysis explores quantitative differences in unsupervised spirometry compared with spirometry completed under professional supervision. METHODS: We searched four databases to find studies that directly compared unsupervised home spirometry with supervised clinic spirometry using a quantitative comparison (e.g. Bland–Altman). There were no restrictions on clinical condition. The primary outcome was measurement differences in common lung function parameters (forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)), forced vital capacity (FVC)), which were pooled to calculate overall mean differences with associated limits of agreement (LoA) and confidence intervals (CI). We used the I(2) statistic to assess heterogeneity, the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool to assess risk of bias and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess evidence certainty for the meta-analyses. The review has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021272816). RESULTS: 3607 records were identified and screened, with 155 full texts assessed for eligibility. We included 28 studies that quantitatively compared spirometry measurements, 17 of which reported a Bland–Altman analysis for FEV(1) and FVC. Overall, unsupervised spirometry produced lower values than supervised spirometry for both FEV(1) with wide variability (mean difference −107 mL; LoA= −509, 296; I(2)=95.8%; p<0.001; very low certainty) and FVC (mean difference −184 mL, LoA= −1028, 660; I(2)=96%; p<0.001; very low certainty). CONCLUSIONS: Analysis under the conditions of the included studies indicated that unsupervised spirometry is not interchangeable with supervised spirometry for individual patients owing to variability and underestimation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10481332
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher European Respiratory Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104813322023-09-07 Unsupervised home spirometry versus supervised clinic spirometry for respiratory disease: a systematic methodology review and meta-analysis Anand, Rohan McLeese, Rebecca Busby, John Stewart, Jonathan Clarke, Mike Man, William D-C. Bradley, Judy Eur Respir Rev Reviews BACKGROUND: The number of patients completing unsupervised home spirometry has recently increased due to more widely available portable technology and the COVID-19 pandemic, despite a lack of solid evidence to support it. This systematic methodology review and meta-analysis explores quantitative differences in unsupervised spirometry compared with spirometry completed under professional supervision. METHODS: We searched four databases to find studies that directly compared unsupervised home spirometry with supervised clinic spirometry using a quantitative comparison (e.g. Bland–Altman). There were no restrictions on clinical condition. The primary outcome was measurement differences in common lung function parameters (forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)), forced vital capacity (FVC)), which were pooled to calculate overall mean differences with associated limits of agreement (LoA) and confidence intervals (CI). We used the I(2) statistic to assess heterogeneity, the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool to assess risk of bias and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess evidence certainty for the meta-analyses. The review has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021272816). RESULTS: 3607 records were identified and screened, with 155 full texts assessed for eligibility. We included 28 studies that quantitatively compared spirometry measurements, 17 of which reported a Bland–Altman analysis for FEV(1) and FVC. Overall, unsupervised spirometry produced lower values than supervised spirometry for both FEV(1) with wide variability (mean difference −107 mL; LoA= −509, 296; I(2)=95.8%; p<0.001; very low certainty) and FVC (mean difference −184 mL, LoA= −1028, 660; I(2)=96%; p<0.001; very low certainty). CONCLUSIONS: Analysis under the conditions of the included studies indicated that unsupervised spirometry is not interchangeable with supervised spirometry for individual patients owing to variability and underestimation. European Respiratory Society 2023-09-06 /pmc/articles/PMC10481332/ /pubmed/37673426 http://dx.doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0248-2022 Text en Copyright ©The authors 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence 4.0.
spellingShingle Reviews
Anand, Rohan
McLeese, Rebecca
Busby, John
Stewart, Jonathan
Clarke, Mike
Man, William D-C.
Bradley, Judy
Unsupervised home spirometry versus supervised clinic spirometry for respiratory disease: a systematic methodology review and meta-analysis
title Unsupervised home spirometry versus supervised clinic spirometry for respiratory disease: a systematic methodology review and meta-analysis
title_full Unsupervised home spirometry versus supervised clinic spirometry for respiratory disease: a systematic methodology review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Unsupervised home spirometry versus supervised clinic spirometry for respiratory disease: a systematic methodology review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Unsupervised home spirometry versus supervised clinic spirometry for respiratory disease: a systematic methodology review and meta-analysis
title_short Unsupervised home spirometry versus supervised clinic spirometry for respiratory disease: a systematic methodology review and meta-analysis
title_sort unsupervised home spirometry versus supervised clinic spirometry for respiratory disease: a systematic methodology review and meta-analysis
topic Reviews
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10481332/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37673426
http://dx.doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0248-2022
work_keys_str_mv AT anandrohan unsupervisedhomespirometryversussupervisedclinicspirometryforrespiratorydiseaseasystematicmethodologyreviewandmetaanalysis
AT mcleeserebecca unsupervisedhomespirometryversussupervisedclinicspirometryforrespiratorydiseaseasystematicmethodologyreviewandmetaanalysis
AT busbyjohn unsupervisedhomespirometryversussupervisedclinicspirometryforrespiratorydiseaseasystematicmethodologyreviewandmetaanalysis
AT stewartjonathan unsupervisedhomespirometryversussupervisedclinicspirometryforrespiratorydiseaseasystematicmethodologyreviewandmetaanalysis
AT clarkemike unsupervisedhomespirometryversussupervisedclinicspirometryforrespiratorydiseaseasystematicmethodologyreviewandmetaanalysis
AT manwilliamdc unsupervisedhomespirometryversussupervisedclinicspirometryforrespiratorydiseaseasystematicmethodologyreviewandmetaanalysis
AT bradleyjudy unsupervisedhomespirometryversussupervisedclinicspirometryforrespiratorydiseaseasystematicmethodologyreviewandmetaanalysis