Kotses Harry, Harver Andrew, Humphries C Thomas
Psychology Department, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio 45701, USA.
J Asthma. 2006 Nov;43(9):649-55. doi: 10.1080/02770900600701309.
Peak flow monitoring of asthma came into vogue with the advent of asthma self-management programs. Because it offered an objective way to gauge asthma severity, it promised improvement in the accuracy of asthma monitoring over that attainable by symptom monitoring. This promise has not been fulfilled. The ensuing years have witnessed a debate concerning the relative merits of symptom and peak flow monitoring. The debate has focused both on the degree to which peak flow and symptom scores are related to one another and on the relative effectiveness of symptom and peak flow monitoring for asthma control. We review research relating to these topics. The work shows that the strength of the relationship between peak flow and symptoms is low to moderate and varies between individuals and that benefits of peak flow monitoring in asthma self-management provide, at best, no more than a small increment in effectiveness beyond that afforded by symptom monitoring.
随着哮喘自我管理项目的出现，哮喘的峰值流速监测开始流行起来。由于它提供了一种客观的方法来评估哮喘的严重程度，所以有望比通过症状监测获得更高的哮喘监测准确性。但这一承诺并未实现。在随后的几年里，出现了一场关于症状监测和峰值流速监测相对优点的辩论。辩论的焦点既在于峰值流速与症状评分之间的相关程度，也在于症状监测和峰值流速监测对哮喘控制的相对有效性。我们回顾了与这些主题相关的研究。研究表明，峰值流速与症状之间的关系强度较低至中等，且因人而异，而且在哮喘自我管理中，峰值流速监测的益处充其量不过是在症状监测所提供的有效性基础上略有增加而已。
