Cargando…

Reference equations for oscillometry and their differences among populations: a systematic scoping review

Respiratory oscillometry is gaining global attention over traditional pulmonary function tests for its sensitivity in detecting small airway obstructions. However, its use in clinical settings as a diagnostic tool is limited because oscillometry lacks globally accepted reference values. In this scop...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Deprato, Andy, Ferrara, Giovanni, Bhutani, Mohit, Melenka, Lyle, Murgia, Nicola, Usmani, Omar S., Lacy, Paige, Moitra, Subhabrata
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: European Respiratory Society 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9724817/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35831009
http://dx.doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0021-2022
_version_ 1784844496807133184
author Deprato, Andy
Ferrara, Giovanni
Bhutani, Mohit
Melenka, Lyle
Murgia, Nicola
Usmani, Omar S.
Lacy, Paige
Moitra, Subhabrata
author_facet Deprato, Andy
Ferrara, Giovanni
Bhutani, Mohit
Melenka, Lyle
Murgia, Nicola
Usmani, Omar S.
Lacy, Paige
Moitra, Subhabrata
author_sort Deprato, Andy
collection PubMed
description Respiratory oscillometry is gaining global attention over traditional pulmonary function tests for its sensitivity in detecting small airway obstructions. However, its use in clinical settings as a diagnostic tool is limited because oscillometry lacks globally accepted reference values. In this scoping review, we systematically assessed the differences between selected oscillometric reference equations with the hypothesis that significant heterogeneity existed between them. We searched bibliographic databases, registries and references for studies that developed equations for healthy adult populations according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A widely used Caucasian model was used as the standard reference and compared against other models using Bland–Altman and Lin's concordance correlational analyses. We screened 1202 titles and abstracts, and after a full-text review of 67 studies, we included 10 in our analyses. Of these, three models had a low-to-moderate agreement with the reference model, particularly those developed from non-Caucasian populations. Although the other six models had a moderate-to-high agreement with the standard model, there were still significant sex-specific variations. This is the first systematic analysis of the heterogeneity between oscillometric reference models and warrants the validation of appropriate equations in clinical applications of oscillometry to avoid diagnostic errors.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9724817
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher European Respiratory Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97248172022-12-08 Reference equations for oscillometry and their differences among populations: a systematic scoping review Deprato, Andy Ferrara, Giovanni Bhutani, Mohit Melenka, Lyle Murgia, Nicola Usmani, Omar S. Lacy, Paige Moitra, Subhabrata Eur Respir Rev Reviews Respiratory oscillometry is gaining global attention over traditional pulmonary function tests for its sensitivity in detecting small airway obstructions. However, its use in clinical settings as a diagnostic tool is limited because oscillometry lacks globally accepted reference values. In this scoping review, we systematically assessed the differences between selected oscillometric reference equations with the hypothesis that significant heterogeneity existed between them. We searched bibliographic databases, registries and references for studies that developed equations for healthy adult populations according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A widely used Caucasian model was used as the standard reference and compared against other models using Bland–Altman and Lin's concordance correlational analyses. We screened 1202 titles and abstracts, and after a full-text review of 67 studies, we included 10 in our analyses. Of these, three models had a low-to-moderate agreement with the reference model, particularly those developed from non-Caucasian populations. Although the other six models had a moderate-to-high agreement with the standard model, there were still significant sex-specific variations. This is the first systematic analysis of the heterogeneity between oscillometric reference models and warrants the validation of appropriate equations in clinical applications of oscillometry to avoid diagnostic errors. European Respiratory Society 2022-07-13 /pmc/articles/PMC9724817/ /pubmed/35831009 http://dx.doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0021-2022 Text en Copyright ©The authors 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0. For commercial reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions@ersnet.org (mailto:permissions@ersnet.org)
spellingShingle Reviews
Deprato, Andy
Ferrara, Giovanni
Bhutani, Mohit
Melenka, Lyle
Murgia, Nicola
Usmani, Omar S.
Lacy, Paige
Moitra, Subhabrata
Reference equations for oscillometry and their differences among populations: a systematic scoping review
title Reference equations for oscillometry and their differences among populations: a systematic scoping review
title_full Reference equations for oscillometry and their differences among populations: a systematic scoping review
title_fullStr Reference equations for oscillometry and their differences among populations: a systematic scoping review
title_full_unstemmed Reference equations for oscillometry and their differences among populations: a systematic scoping review
title_short Reference equations for oscillometry and their differences among populations: a systematic scoping review
title_sort reference equations for oscillometry and their differences among populations: a systematic scoping review
topic Reviews
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9724817/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35831009
http://dx.doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0021-2022
work_keys_str_mv AT depratoandy referenceequationsforoscillometryandtheirdifferencesamongpopulationsasystematicscopingreview
AT ferraragiovanni referenceequationsforoscillometryandtheirdifferencesamongpopulationsasystematicscopingreview
AT bhutanimohit referenceequationsforoscillometryandtheirdifferencesamongpopulationsasystematicscopingreview
AT melenkalyle referenceequationsforoscillometryandtheirdifferencesamongpopulationsasystematicscopingreview
AT murgianicola referenceequationsforoscillometryandtheirdifferencesamongpopulationsasystematicscopingreview
AT usmaniomars referenceequationsforoscillometryandtheirdifferencesamongpopulationsasystematicscopingreview
AT lacypaige referenceequationsforoscillometryandtheirdifferencesamongpopulationsasystematicscopingreview
AT moitrasubhabrata referenceequationsforoscillometryandtheirdifferencesamongpopulationsasystematicscopingreview