Cargando…

The Practical Significance of Measurement Error in Pulmonary Function Testing Conducted in Research Settings

Conventional spirometry produces measurement error by using repeatability criteria (RC) to discard acceptable data and terminating tests early when RC are met. These practices also implicitly assume that there is no variation across maneuvers within each test. This has implications for air pollution...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Belzer, Richard B., Lewis, R. Jeffrey
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6851780/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31158315
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/risa.13315
_version_ 1783469685010857984
author Belzer, Richard B.
Lewis, R. Jeffrey
author_facet Belzer, Richard B.
Lewis, R. Jeffrey
author_sort Belzer, Richard B.
collection PubMed
description Conventional spirometry produces measurement error by using repeatability criteria (RC) to discard acceptable data and terminating tests early when RC are met. These practices also implicitly assume that there is no variation across maneuvers within each test. This has implications for air pollution regulations that rely on pulmonary function tests to determine adverse effects or set standards. We perform a Monte Carlo simulation of 20,902 tests of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)), each with eight maneuvers, for an individual with empirically obtained, plausibly normal pulmonary function. Default coefficients of variation for inter‐ and intratest variability (3% and 6%, respectively) are employed. Measurement error is defined as the difference between results from the conventional protocol and an unconstrained, eight‐maneuver alternative. In the default model, average measurement error is shown to be ∼5%. The minimum difference necessary for statistical significance at p < 0.05 for a before/after comparison is shown to be 16%. Meanwhile, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has deemed single‐digit percentage decrements in FEV(1) sufficient to justify more stringent national ambient air quality standards. Sensitivity analysis reveals that results are insensitive to intertest variability but highly sensitive to intratest variability. Halving the latter to 3% reduces measurement error by 55%. Increasing it to 9% or 12% increases measurement error by 65% or 125%, respectively. Within‐day FEV(1) differences ≤5% among normal subjects are believed to be clinically insignificant. Therefore, many differences reported as statistically significant are likely to be artifactual. Reliable data are needed to estimate intratest variability for the general population, subpopulations of interest, and research samples. Sensitive subpopulations (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or COPD patients, asthmatics, children) are likely to have higher intratest variability, making it more difficult to derive valid statistical inferences about differences observed after treatment or exposure.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6851780
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68517802019-11-18 The Practical Significance of Measurement Error in Pulmonary Function Testing Conducted in Research Settings Belzer, Richard B. Lewis, R. Jeffrey Risk Anal Original Research Articles Conventional spirometry produces measurement error by using repeatability criteria (RC) to discard acceptable data and terminating tests early when RC are met. These practices also implicitly assume that there is no variation across maneuvers within each test. This has implications for air pollution regulations that rely on pulmonary function tests to determine adverse effects or set standards. We perform a Monte Carlo simulation of 20,902 tests of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)), each with eight maneuvers, for an individual with empirically obtained, plausibly normal pulmonary function. Default coefficients of variation for inter‐ and intratest variability (3% and 6%, respectively) are employed. Measurement error is defined as the difference between results from the conventional protocol and an unconstrained, eight‐maneuver alternative. In the default model, average measurement error is shown to be ∼5%. The minimum difference necessary for statistical significance at p < 0.05 for a before/after comparison is shown to be 16%. Meanwhile, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has deemed single‐digit percentage decrements in FEV(1) sufficient to justify more stringent national ambient air quality standards. Sensitivity analysis reveals that results are insensitive to intertest variability but highly sensitive to intratest variability. Halving the latter to 3% reduces measurement error by 55%. Increasing it to 9% or 12% increases measurement error by 65% or 125%, respectively. Within‐day FEV(1) differences ≤5% among normal subjects are believed to be clinically insignificant. Therefore, many differences reported as statistically significant are likely to be artifactual. Reliable data are needed to estimate intratest variability for the general population, subpopulations of interest, and research samples. Sensitive subpopulations (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or COPD patients, asthmatics, children) are likely to have higher intratest variability, making it more difficult to derive valid statistical inferences about differences observed after treatment or exposure. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-06-03 2019-10 /pmc/articles/PMC6851780/ /pubmed/31158315 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/risa.13315 Text en © 2019 The Authors Risk Analysis published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Risk Analysis. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research Articles
Belzer, Richard B.
Lewis, R. Jeffrey
The Practical Significance of Measurement Error in Pulmonary Function Testing Conducted in Research Settings
title The Practical Significance of Measurement Error in Pulmonary Function Testing Conducted in Research Settings
title_full The Practical Significance of Measurement Error in Pulmonary Function Testing Conducted in Research Settings
title_fullStr The Practical Significance of Measurement Error in Pulmonary Function Testing Conducted in Research Settings
title_full_unstemmed The Practical Significance of Measurement Error in Pulmonary Function Testing Conducted in Research Settings
title_short The Practical Significance of Measurement Error in Pulmonary Function Testing Conducted in Research Settings
title_sort practical significance of measurement error in pulmonary function testing conducted in research settings
topic Original Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6851780/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31158315
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/risa.13315
work_keys_str_mv AT belzerrichardb thepracticalsignificanceofmeasurementerrorinpulmonaryfunctiontestingconductedinresearchsettings
AT lewisrjeffrey thepracticalsignificanceofmeasurementerrorinpulmonaryfunctiontestingconductedinresearchsettings
AT belzerrichardb practicalsignificanceofmeasurementerrorinpulmonaryfunctiontestingconductedinresearchsettings
AT lewisrjeffrey practicalsignificanceofmeasurementerrorinpulmonaryfunctiontestingconductedinresearchsettings