CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS OF SOME REFERENCE SYSTEMS IN THE INTERPRETATION OF SPIROMETRY

M Y Kameneva; A V Tishkov; A V Byhova; M A Pokhaznikova; V I Trophimov

doi:10.17816/RFD2012223-28

Russian Family Doctor ›› 2012, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (2) : 23 -28. DOI: 10.17816/RFD2012223-28

Articles

research-article

CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS OF SOME REFERENCE SYSTEMS IN THE INTERPRETATION OF SPIROMETRY

Author information +

History +

PDF

Abstract

Spirometry one of the most popular methods of functional respiratory tests especially in the outpatient practice of primary health care. The question of the boundaries of normal spirometric parameters is essential in determining the presence or absence of pathological changes in the individual patient. The article analyzes the consistency of the various reference systems in the interpretation of spirometry results in terms of predicted values and the lower limit of normal LLN (low level of normal — LLN).

Keywords

spirometry / the predicted values / low level of normal — LLN

Cite this article

Download citation ▾

M Y Kameneva, A V Tishkov, A V Byhova, M A Pokhaznikova, V I Trophimov. CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS OF SOME REFERENCE SYSTEMS IN THE INTERPRETATION OF SPIROMETRY. Russian Family Doctor, 2012, 16(2): 23-28 DOI:10.17816/RFD2012223-28

登录浏览全文

4963

注册一个新账户忘记密码

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within

[1]	Руководство по клинической физиологии дыхания / Под. ред. Л. Л. Шика, Н. Н. Канаева. — Л.: Медицина, 1980. — С. 376.

[2]	Клемент Р. Ф. Принципиальные и методические основы разработки единой системы должных величин // Современные проблемы клинической физиологии дыхания. — Л., 1987. — С. 5-19.

[3]	Pellegrino R., Viegri G., Brusasco V. et al. Interpretative strategies for lung function tests // Eur. Respir. J. — 2005. — Vol. 26. — № 5. — P. 948-968.

[4]	Stanojevic S, Wade A., Stocks J. et al. Reference ranges for spirometry across all ages: a new approach // Am J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. — 2008. — Vol. 177. — P. 253-260.

[5]	Collen J., Greenburg D., Holley A. et al. Discordance in spirometric interpretations using three commonly used reference equations vs national health and nutrition examination study III // Chest. — 2008. — Vol. 134. — P. 1009-1016.

[6]	Miller M. R, Pedersen O. F., Pellegrino R. et al. Debating the definition of airflow obstruction: time to move on? // Eur. Respir. J. — 2009. — Vol. 34. — № 3. — P. 527-528.

[7]	Miller M. R., Quanjer P. H., Swanne M. P. et al. Interpreting lung function data using 80% predicted and fixed thresholds misclassifies more than 20% of patients // Chest. — 2011. — Vol. 139. — P. 52-59.

[8]	Hansen J. E. Lower limit of normal is better than 70% or 80% // Chest. — 2011. — Vol. 139. — P. 6-8.

[9]	Miller M. R, Hankinson J., Brusasco V. et al. ATS/ERS Task Force. Standartization of spirometry // Eur. Respir. J. — 2005. — Vol. 26. — № 2. — P. 319-318.

[10]	European Community for Steel and Coal: standardized lung function testing // Eur. Respir. J. — 1993. — Vol. 6., S. 16. — P. 5-40.

[11]	Hankinson J. L., Odencrantz J. R., Fedan K. B. Spirometric reference values from a sample of the general U. S. population // Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. — 1999. — Vol. 159. — P. 179-187.

[12]	Клемент Р. Ф., Лаврушин А. А., Котегов Ю. М. и др. Инструкция по применению формул и таблиц должных величин основных спирографических показателей. — Л., 1986. — 79 с.