Cargando…

Accuracy of portable spirometers in the diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease A meta-analysis

Portable spirometers has been approved for diagnosing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, their diagnostic accuracy has not been reviewed. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the diagnostic value of portable spirometers in detecting COPD. A comprehe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhou, Jiawei, Li, Xiaomeng, Wang, Xingjian, Yu, Na, Wang, Wei
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9019105/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35440665
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41533-022-00275-x
_version_ 1784689177726550016
author Zhou, Jiawei
Li, Xiaomeng
Wang, Xingjian
Yu, Na
Wang, Wei
author_facet Zhou, Jiawei
Li, Xiaomeng
Wang, Xingjian
Yu, Na
Wang, Wei
author_sort Zhou, Jiawei
collection PubMed
description Portable spirometers has been approved for diagnosing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, their diagnostic accuracy has not been reviewed. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the diagnostic value of portable spirometers in detecting COPD. A comprehensive literature search for relevant studies was conducted in PubMed, Embase, CNKI, Wan Fang, and Web of Science databases. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC), area under the curve (AUC), and other related indices were calculated using the bivariate mixed-effect model. Subgroup analysis was performed to explore the source of heterogeneity. Thirty one studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic ratio (DOR), SROC, and AUC of the SROC of portable spirometers were 0.85 (0.81–0.88), 0.85 (0.81–0.88), 5.6 (4.4–7.3), 0.18 (0.15–0.22), 31 (21–46) and 0.91 (0.89–0.94), respectively. Among the three commonly used types of portable spirometers, the accuracy of PIKO-6 was higher (0.95) than that of COPD-6 (0.91) and PEF (0.82). Subgroup analysis indicated that the accuracy of a multi-indices portable spirometer was higher than that of a single-index one (P < 0.05). In addition, portable spirometry performed by professional technicians in tertiary hospitals was more accurate than for those conducted by trained technicians in primary care facilities and communities (P < 0.05). Moreover, the accuracy of studies conducted in developing country was superior to developed country (P < 0.05). Portable spirometers have high accuracy in the diagnosis of COPD. Multi-index COPD-6 and PIKO-6 displayed higher accuracy than others. Standardized training of instrument operators should be considered to achieve reliable results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9019105
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90191052022-04-28 Accuracy of portable spirometers in the diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease A meta-analysis Zhou, Jiawei Li, Xiaomeng Wang, Xingjian Yu, Na Wang, Wei NPJ Prim Care Respir Med Review Article Portable spirometers has been approved for diagnosing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, their diagnostic accuracy has not been reviewed. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the diagnostic value of portable spirometers in detecting COPD. A comprehensive literature search for relevant studies was conducted in PubMed, Embase, CNKI, Wan Fang, and Web of Science databases. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC), area under the curve (AUC), and other related indices were calculated using the bivariate mixed-effect model. Subgroup analysis was performed to explore the source of heterogeneity. Thirty one studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic ratio (DOR), SROC, and AUC of the SROC of portable spirometers were 0.85 (0.81–0.88), 0.85 (0.81–0.88), 5.6 (4.4–7.3), 0.18 (0.15–0.22), 31 (21–46) and 0.91 (0.89–0.94), respectively. Among the three commonly used types of portable spirometers, the accuracy of PIKO-6 was higher (0.95) than that of COPD-6 (0.91) and PEF (0.82). Subgroup analysis indicated that the accuracy of a multi-indices portable spirometer was higher than that of a single-index one (P < 0.05). In addition, portable spirometry performed by professional technicians in tertiary hospitals was more accurate than for those conducted by trained technicians in primary care facilities and communities (P < 0.05). Moreover, the accuracy of studies conducted in developing country was superior to developed country (P < 0.05). Portable spirometers have high accuracy in the diagnosis of COPD. Multi-index COPD-6 and PIKO-6 displayed higher accuracy than others. Standardized training of instrument operators should be considered to achieve reliable results. Nature Publishing Group UK 2022-04-19 /pmc/articles/PMC9019105/ /pubmed/35440665 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41533-022-00275-x Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Review Article
Zhou, Jiawei
Li, Xiaomeng
Wang, Xingjian
Yu, Na
Wang, Wei
Accuracy of portable spirometers in the diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease A meta-analysis
title Accuracy of portable spirometers in the diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease A meta-analysis
title_full Accuracy of portable spirometers in the diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease A meta-analysis
title_fullStr Accuracy of portable spirometers in the diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease A meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Accuracy of portable spirometers in the diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease A meta-analysis
title_short Accuracy of portable spirometers in the diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease A meta-analysis
title_sort accuracy of portable spirometers in the diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease a meta-analysis
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9019105/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35440665
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41533-022-00275-x
work_keys_str_mv AT zhoujiawei accuracyofportablespirometersinthediagnosisofchronicobstructivepulmonarydiseaseametaanalysis
AT lixiaomeng accuracyofportablespirometersinthediagnosisofchronicobstructivepulmonarydiseaseametaanalysis
AT wangxingjian accuracyofportablespirometersinthediagnosisofchronicobstructivepulmonarydiseaseametaanalysis
AT yuna accuracyofportablespirometersinthediagnosisofchronicobstructivepulmonarydiseaseametaanalysis
AT wangwei accuracyofportablespirometersinthediagnosisofchronicobstructivepulmonarydiseaseametaanalysis