A comparison of alternative selection methods for reporting spirometric parameters in healthy adults

Abstract Alternative methods have been proposed to report spirometry indices from test sessions (forced expiratory volume 1 s, FEV1; forced vital capacity, FVC). However, most use the American and European Societies’ standard (ATS/ERS) which stops sessions once a repeatability threshold is met which...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Jennifer H. Therkorn, Daniella R. Toto, Michael J. Falvo
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Nature Portfolio 2021
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/f8db03e2dc214766ae6227ea919d8876
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:f8db03e2dc214766ae6227ea919d8876
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:f8db03e2dc214766ae6227ea919d88762021-12-02T17:03:50ZA comparison of alternative selection methods for reporting spirometric parameters in healthy adults10.1038/s41598-021-94120-92045-2322https://doaj.org/article/f8db03e2dc214766ae6227ea919d88762021-07-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-94120-9https://doaj.org/toc/2045-2322Abstract Alternative methods have been proposed to report spirometry indices from test sessions (forced expiratory volume 1 s, FEV1; forced vital capacity, FVC). However, most use the American and European Societies’ standard (ATS/ERS) which stops sessions once a repeatability threshold is met which may not accurately represent intra-session variability. Our goal was to repeat trials beyond the repeatability threshold and evaluate alternative reporting methods. 130 adults performed spirometry across two visits. Spirometry indices were reported using the ATS/ERS standard and four alternatives. 78 participants (60%) had valid data for all methods and visits. Intra-session coefficients of variation were low (FEV1: 3.1–3.7%; FVC: 2.3–2.8%). Our four alternative methods yielded FEV1 and FVC values ≤ 0.08 L different from ATS/ERS standard, which is not clinically meaningful. Intraclass correlation coefficients were ≥ 0.97 indicating consistency across repeated measures. The smallest real differences ranged from FEV1: 0.20–0.27 L and FVC: 0.18–0.24 L indicating consistency and low measurement error. Overall, all methods for reporting FEV1 and FVC demonstrated similar measurement error, precision, and stability within- and between-visits. These results suggest that once ATS/ERS repeatability is achieved, which approach is used for reporting spirometric variables may be of low clinical significance in a healthy population.Jennifer H. TherkornDaniella R. TotoMichael J. FalvoNature PortfolioarticleMedicineRScienceQENScientific Reports, Vol 11, Iss 1, Pp 1-12 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Jennifer H. Therkorn Daniella R. Toto Michael J. Falvo A comparison of alternative selection methods for reporting spirometric parameters in healthy adults
description	Abstract Alternative methods have been proposed to report spirometry indices from test sessions (forced expiratory volume 1 s, FEV1; forced vital capacity, FVC). However, most use the American and European Societies’ standard (ATS/ERS) which stops sessions once a repeatability threshold is met which may not accurately represent intra-session variability. Our goal was to repeat trials beyond the repeatability threshold and evaluate alternative reporting methods. 130 adults performed spirometry across two visits. Spirometry indices were reported using the ATS/ERS standard and four alternatives. 78 participants (60%) had valid data for all methods and visits. Intra-session coefficients of variation were low (FEV1: 3.1–3.7%; FVC: 2.3–2.8%). Our four alternative methods yielded FEV1 and FVC values ≤ 0.08 L different from ATS/ERS standard, which is not clinically meaningful. Intraclass correlation coefficients were ≥ 0.97 indicating consistency across repeated measures. The smallest real differences ranged from FEV1: 0.20–0.27 L and FVC: 0.18–0.24 L indicating consistency and low measurement error. Overall, all methods for reporting FEV1 and FVC demonstrated similar measurement error, precision, and stability within- and between-visits. These results suggest that once ATS/ERS repeatability is achieved, which approach is used for reporting spirometric variables may be of low clinical significance in a healthy population.
format	article
author	Jennifer H. Therkorn Daniella R. Toto Michael J. Falvo
author_facet	Jennifer H. Therkorn Daniella R. Toto Michael J. Falvo
author_sort	Jennifer H. Therkorn
title	A comparison of alternative selection methods for reporting spirometric parameters in healthy adults
title_short	A comparison of alternative selection methods for reporting spirometric parameters in healthy adults
title_full	A comparison of alternative selection methods for reporting spirometric parameters in healthy adults
title_fullStr	A comparison of alternative selection methods for reporting spirometric parameters in healthy adults
title_full_unstemmed	A comparison of alternative selection methods for reporting spirometric parameters in healthy adults
title_sort	comparison of alternative selection methods for reporting spirometric parameters in healthy adults
publisher	Nature Portfolio
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/f8db03e2dc214766ae6227ea919d8876
work_keys_str_mv	AT jenniferhtherkorn acomparisonofalternativeselectionmethodsforreportingspirometricparametersinhealthyadults AT daniellartoto acomparisonofalternativeselectionmethodsforreportingspirometricparametersinhealthyadults AT michaeljfalvo acomparisonofalternativeselectionmethodsforreportingspirometricparametersinhealthyadults AT jenniferhtherkorn comparisonofalternativeselectionmethodsforreportingspirometricparametersinhealthyadults AT daniellartoto comparisonofalternativeselectionmethodsforreportingspirometricparametersinhealthyadults AT michaeljfalvo comparisonofalternativeselectionmethodsforreportingspirometricparametersinhealthyadults
_version_	1718381885796646912

A comparison of alternative selection methods for reporting spirometric parameters in healthy adults

Ejemplares similares