Cargando…

Use of forced vital capacity and forced expiratory volume in 1 second quality criteria for determining a valid test

The 2005 American Thoracic Society (ATS)/European Respiratory Society (ERS) spirometry guidelines define valid tests as having three acceptable blows and a repeatable forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1). The aim of this study was to determine how reviewer and compu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hankinson, John L., Eschenbacher, Bill, Townsend, Mary, Stocks, Janet, Quanjer, Philip H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: European Respiratory Society 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4416111/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25537554
http://dx.doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00116814
_version_ 1782369182350835712
author Hankinson, John L.
Eschenbacher, Bill
Townsend, Mary
Stocks, Janet
Quanjer, Philip H.
author_facet Hankinson, John L.
Eschenbacher, Bill
Townsend, Mary
Stocks, Janet
Quanjer, Philip H.
author_sort Hankinson, John L.
collection PubMed
description The 2005 American Thoracic Society (ATS)/European Respiratory Society (ERS) spirometry guidelines define valid tests as having three acceptable blows and a repeatable forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1). The aim of this study was to determine how reviewer and computer-determined ATS/ERS quality could affect population reference values for FVC and FEV1. Spirometry results from 7777 normal subjects aged 8–80 years (NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) III) were assigned quality grades A to F for FVC and FEV1 by a computer and one reviewer (reviewer 1). Results from a subgroup of 1466 Caucasian adults (aged 19–80 years) were reviewed by two additional reviewers. Mean deviations from NHANES III predicted for FVC and FEV1 were examined by quality grade (A to F). Reviewer 1 rejected (D and F grade) 5.2% of the 7777 test sessions and the computer rejected ∼16%, primarily due to end-of-test (EOT) failures. Within the subgroup, the computer rejected 11.5% of the results and the three reviewers rejected 3.7–5.9%. Average FEV1 and FVC were minimally influenced by grades A to C allocated by reviewer 1. Quality assessment of individual blows including EOT assessments should primarily be used as an aid to good quality during testing rather than for subsequently disregarding data. Reconsideration of EOT criteria and its application, and improved grading standards and training in over-reading are required. Present EOT criteria results in the exclusion of too many subjects while having minimal impact on predicted values.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4416111
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher European Respiratory Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44161112015-05-05 Use of forced vital capacity and forced expiratory volume in 1 second quality criteria for determining a valid test Hankinson, John L. Eschenbacher, Bill Townsend, Mary Stocks, Janet Quanjer, Philip H. Eur Respir J Original Articles The 2005 American Thoracic Society (ATS)/European Respiratory Society (ERS) spirometry guidelines define valid tests as having three acceptable blows and a repeatable forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1). The aim of this study was to determine how reviewer and computer-determined ATS/ERS quality could affect population reference values for FVC and FEV1. Spirometry results from 7777 normal subjects aged 8–80 years (NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) III) were assigned quality grades A to F for FVC and FEV1 by a computer and one reviewer (reviewer 1). Results from a subgroup of 1466 Caucasian adults (aged 19–80 years) were reviewed by two additional reviewers. Mean deviations from NHANES III predicted for FVC and FEV1 were examined by quality grade (A to F). Reviewer 1 rejected (D and F grade) 5.2% of the 7777 test sessions and the computer rejected ∼16%, primarily due to end-of-test (EOT) failures. Within the subgroup, the computer rejected 11.5% of the results and the three reviewers rejected 3.7–5.9%. Average FEV1 and FVC were minimally influenced by grades A to C allocated by reviewer 1. Quality assessment of individual blows including EOT assessments should primarily be used as an aid to good quality during testing rather than for subsequently disregarding data. Reconsideration of EOT criteria and its application, and improved grading standards and training in over-reading are required. Present EOT criteria results in the exclusion of too many subjects while having minimal impact on predicted values. European Respiratory Society 2014-12-23 2015-05 /pmc/articles/PMC4416111/ /pubmed/25537554 http://dx.doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00116814 Text en Copyright ©ERS 2015 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ ERJ Open articles are open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Hankinson, John L.
Eschenbacher, Bill
Townsend, Mary
Stocks, Janet
Quanjer, Philip H.
Use of forced vital capacity and forced expiratory volume in 1 second quality criteria for determining a valid test
title Use of forced vital capacity and forced expiratory volume in 1 second quality criteria for determining a valid test
title_full Use of forced vital capacity and forced expiratory volume in 1 second quality criteria for determining a valid test
title_fullStr Use of forced vital capacity and forced expiratory volume in 1 second quality criteria for determining a valid test
title_full_unstemmed Use of forced vital capacity and forced expiratory volume in 1 second quality criteria for determining a valid test
title_short Use of forced vital capacity and forced expiratory volume in 1 second quality criteria for determining a valid test
title_sort use of forced vital capacity and forced expiratory volume in 1 second quality criteria for determining a valid test
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4416111/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25537554
http://dx.doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00116814
work_keys_str_mv AT hankinsonjohnl useofforcedvitalcapacityandforcedexpiratoryvolumein1secondqualitycriteriafordeterminingavalidtest
AT eschenbacherbill useofforcedvitalcapacityandforcedexpiratoryvolumein1secondqualitycriteriafordeterminingavalidtest
AT townsendmary useofforcedvitalcapacityandforcedexpiratoryvolumein1secondqualitycriteriafordeterminingavalidtest
AT stocksjanet useofforcedvitalcapacityandforcedexpiratoryvolumein1secondqualitycriteriafordeterminingavalidtest
AT quanjerphiliph useofforcedvitalcapacityandforcedexpiratoryvolumein1secondqualitycriteriafordeterminingavalidtest