HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:
Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password

This Article Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Personal Article Archive Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Liistro, G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Liistro, G.

Technical and Functional Assessment of 10 Office Spirometers^*

A Multicenter Comparative Study

Giuseppe Liistro, MD, PhD; Carl Vanwelde, MD; Walter Vincken, MD, PhD, FCCP; Jan Vandevoorde, MD; Geert Verleden, MD, PhD; Johan Buffels, MD; on Behalf of the COPD Advisory Board

^* From the Pneumology Unit (Dr. Liistro), Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels; Department of General Practice (Dr. Vanwelde), Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve; Pneumology Unit (Dr. Vincken) and Department of General Practice (Dr. Vandevoorde), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels; and Pneumology Unit (Dr. Verleden) and Department of General Practice (Dr. Buffels), Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. Members of the COPD Advisory Board are given in the ^Appendix.

Correspondence to: Giuseppe Liistro, MD, PhD, Pneumology Unit, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Avenue Hippocrate 10, 1200 Bruxelles, Belgium; e-mail: Giuseppe.liistro{at}clin.ucl.ac.be

Abstract

Study objectives: To investigate the technical properties and user friendliness of 10 office spirometers devoted for use in general practice, and to compare the results with standard diagnostic spirometers.

Design: Multicenter study.

Setting: Ten spirometer models were tested independently in three pulmonary function laboratories and by three general practitioners (GPs).

Measurements: The laboratories studied the technical quality of the office spirometers in terms of precision and agreement with standard spirometers, whereas the three GPs assessed their user friendliness. The spirometers tested were as follows: Spirobank (Medical International Research; Rome, Italy); Simplicity (Puritan Bennett; Pleasanton, CA); OneFlow (Clement Clarke International; Harlow, Essex, UK); Datospir 70 (Sibelmed; Barcelona, Spain); Datospir 120 (Sibelmed); SpiroPro (SensorMedics; Yorba Linda, CA); EasyOne (NDD; Zurich, Switzerland); MicroLoop (Micro Medical; Chatham, Kent, UK); SpiroStar (Medikro; Kuopio, Finland); and Pneumotrac (Vitalograph; Maids Moreton, Buckingham, UK). FVC and FEV₁ were measured in 399 subjects. User friendliness was assessed by the three GPs using a questionnaire.

Results: The precision of FEV₁ of the office and standard spirometers was comparable, but three office spirometers had > 200 mL limits of precision for FVC. Some devices presented a proportional difference on the FEV₁ with standard spirometers, underestimating the small values. The limits of agreements between standard and some office spirometers for FEV₁/FVC ratio was > 10%. The overall user friendliness was estimated as good.

Conclusions: The global quality and user friendliness of several office spirometers make them acceptable for the detection of COPD, although differences between the laboratory and some of the office spirometers values suggest that the misclassification rates may be increased when using some models of office spirometers.

Key Words: comparative study • COPD detection • pulmonary function tests • spirometer • spirometry

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. J. Joo, T. A. Lee, and K. B. Weiss Geographic Variation of Spirometry Use in Newly Diagnosed COPD Chest, July 1, 2008; 134(1): 38 - 45. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]