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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |