van den Boom G, van der Star L M, Folgering H, van Schayck C P, van Weel C
Department of General Practice and Social Medicine, University of Nijemegen, The Netherlands.
Respir Med. 1999 Sep;93(9):643-7. doi: 10.1016/s0954-6111(99)90104-x.
The use of spirometry is becoming more and more widespread in non-laboratory situations such as general practice or occupational medicine. In these non-laboratory situations, volume calibration with a 3000 ml syringe is often the only feasible method to ensure that the spirometer produces valid and reproducible data. Sophisticated equipment to calibrate forced manoeuvres with standard waveforms are not present. In this study, we assessed whether volumetric calibration is a guarantee for valid and comparable spirometric results. Two portable spirometers were tested. On 8 consecutive test days, both spirometers were calibrated with a 3000 ml syringe in accordance with the American Thoracic Society (ATS) guidelines. The comparability of the spirometric results (forced expiratory volume in 1 S, FEV1) was tested in two ways. Firstly, the spirometers were compared to each other using the results from 43 volunteers on the same 8 test days. The spirometers were presented in a randomized order and volunteers were asked to perform a series of reproducible manoeuvres in both spirometers. Paired observations were analysed, using Bland and Altman plots. Secondly, the spirometers were compared to a 'gold standard', a computer-driven syringe (CDS). Calibration with the 3000 ml syringe showed that both spirometers complied with the ATS criteria for volume calibration for diagnostic spirometry. However, paired FEV1 data obtained in subjects showed a systematic, volume-dependent difference between the two spirometers (mean difference: 289 ml, P < 0.001, systematic difference: 8.6%, P < 0.0001). This systematic difference was confirmed by the comparisons with the CDS. Volume calibration may be misleading. The results from volume calibration may meet the ATS criteria, but this is no guarantee that data from forced manoeuvres are accurate. If CDS equipment to simulate standard wave forms is not available, it is recommended that biological calibration is performed regularly and, if possible, that paired data from two (or more) different spirometers are compared.
肺量计的使用在诸如普通医疗或职业医学等非实验室环境中越来越普遍。在这些非实验室环境中,使用3000毫升注射器进行容量校准通常是确保肺量计产生有效且可重复数据的唯一可行方法。不存在用于校准具有标准波形的用力动作的复杂设备。在本研究中,我们评估了容量校准是否能保证获得有效且可比的肺量计测量结果。对两台便携式肺量计进行了测试。在连续8个测试日,两台肺量计均按照美国胸科学会(ATS)指南用3000毫升注射器进行校准。通过两种方式测试了肺量计测量结果(第1秒用力呼气量,FEV1)的可比性。首先,在相同的8个测试日,使用43名志愿者的结果将两台肺量计相互比较。以随机顺序展示肺量计,并要求志愿者在两台肺量计中进行一系列可重复的动作。使用布兰德-奥特曼图分析配对观察结果。其次,将肺量计与“金标准”——计算机驱动注射器(CDS)进行比较。用3000毫升注射器校准显示,两台肺量计均符合ATS诊断性肺量计容量校准标准。然而,在受试者中获得的配对FEV1数据显示,两台肺量计之间存在系统性的、与容量相关的差异(平均差异:289毫升,P<0.001,系统性差异:8.6%,P<0.0001)。与CDS的比较证实了这种系统性差异。容量校准可能会产生误导。容量校准结果可能符合ATS标准,但这并不能保证用力动作的数据准确。如果没有用于模拟标准波形的CDS设备,建议定期进行生物校准,并尽可能比较来自两台(或更多)不同肺量计的配对数据。