Cargando…

Physiological tests of small airways function in diagnosing asthma: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a common, heterogeneous disease that is characterised by chronic airway inflammation and variable expiratory airflow limitation. Current guidelines use spirometric measures for asthma assessment. This systematic review aimed to assess whether the most commonly reported tests of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Almeshari, Mohammed A, Alobaidi, Nowaf Y, Edgar, Ross G, Stockley, James, Sapey, Elizabeth
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7754643/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33371011
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000770
_version_ 1783626234438090752
author Almeshari, Mohammed A
Alobaidi, Nowaf Y
Edgar, Ross G
Stockley, James
Sapey, Elizabeth
author_facet Almeshari, Mohammed A
Alobaidi, Nowaf Y
Edgar, Ross G
Stockley, James
Sapey, Elizabeth
author_sort Almeshari, Mohammed A
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Asthma is a common, heterogeneous disease that is characterised by chronic airway inflammation and variable expiratory airflow limitation. Current guidelines use spirometric measures for asthma assessment. This systematic review aimed to assess whether the most commonly reported tests of small airways function could contribute to the diagnosis of asthma. METHODS: Standard systematic review methodology was used, and a range of electronic databases was searched (Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Web of Science, DARE). Studies that included physiological tests of small airways function to diagnose asthma in adults were included, with no restrictions on language or date. The risk of bias and quality assessment tools used were Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality tool for cross-sectional studies and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 for diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies. RESULTS: 7072 studies were identified and 10 studies met review criteria. 7 included oscillation techniques and 5 included maximal mid-expiratory flow (MMEF). Studies were small and of variable quality. In oscillometry, total resistance (R5) and reactance at 5 Hz (X5) was altered in asthma compared with healthy controls. The percentage predicted of MMEF was lower in patients with asthma compared with controls in all studies and lower than the % predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s. In DTA of oscillometry, R5 showed a sensitivity between 69% and 72% and specificity between 61% and 86%. CONCLUSION: There were differences in the results of physiological tests of small airway function in patients with asthma compared with controls. However, studies are small and heterogeneous. Further studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of these tests on a larger scale, including studies to determine which test methodology is the most useful in asthma.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7754643
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77546432020-12-29 Physiological tests of small airways function in diagnosing asthma: a systematic review Almeshari, Mohammed A Alobaidi, Nowaf Y Edgar, Ross G Stockley, James Sapey, Elizabeth BMJ Open Respir Res Respiratory Physiology BACKGROUND: Asthma is a common, heterogeneous disease that is characterised by chronic airway inflammation and variable expiratory airflow limitation. Current guidelines use spirometric measures for asthma assessment. This systematic review aimed to assess whether the most commonly reported tests of small airways function could contribute to the diagnosis of asthma. METHODS: Standard systematic review methodology was used, and a range of electronic databases was searched (Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Web of Science, DARE). Studies that included physiological tests of small airways function to diagnose asthma in adults were included, with no restrictions on language or date. The risk of bias and quality assessment tools used were Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality tool for cross-sectional studies and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 for diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies. RESULTS: 7072 studies were identified and 10 studies met review criteria. 7 included oscillation techniques and 5 included maximal mid-expiratory flow (MMEF). Studies were small and of variable quality. In oscillometry, total resistance (R5) and reactance at 5 Hz (X5) was altered in asthma compared with healthy controls. The percentage predicted of MMEF was lower in patients with asthma compared with controls in all studies and lower than the % predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s. In DTA of oscillometry, R5 showed a sensitivity between 69% and 72% and specificity between 61% and 86%. CONCLUSION: There were differences in the results of physiological tests of small airway function in patients with asthma compared with controls. However, studies are small and heterogeneous. Further studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of these tests on a larger scale, including studies to determine which test methodology is the most useful in asthma. BMJ Publishing Group 2020-12-21 /pmc/articles/PMC7754643/ /pubmed/33371011 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000770 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Respiratory Physiology
Almeshari, Mohammed A
Alobaidi, Nowaf Y
Edgar, Ross G
Stockley, James
Sapey, Elizabeth
Physiological tests of small airways function in diagnosing asthma: a systematic review
title Physiological tests of small airways function in diagnosing asthma: a systematic review
title_full Physiological tests of small airways function in diagnosing asthma: a systematic review
title_fullStr Physiological tests of small airways function in diagnosing asthma: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Physiological tests of small airways function in diagnosing asthma: a systematic review
title_short Physiological tests of small airways function in diagnosing asthma: a systematic review
title_sort physiological tests of small airways function in diagnosing asthma: a systematic review
topic Respiratory Physiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7754643/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33371011
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000770
work_keys_str_mv AT almesharimohammeda physiologicaltestsofsmallairwaysfunctionindiagnosingasthmaasystematicreview
AT alobaidinowafy physiologicaltestsofsmallairwaysfunctionindiagnosingasthmaasystematicreview
AT edgarrossg physiologicaltestsofsmallairwaysfunctionindiagnosingasthmaasystematicreview
AT stockleyjames physiologicaltestsofsmallairwaysfunctionindiagnosingasthmaasystematicreview
AT sapeyelizabeth physiologicaltestsofsmallairwaysfunctionindiagnosingasthmaasystematicreview