Occupational Medicine, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran.
Respirology. 2012 Apr;17(3):541-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1843.2012.02146.x.
Pulmonary function tests play an important role in the management of pulmonary diseases. One of the tests that are widely used is spirometry. Performing an acceptable spirometry manoeuvre according to the standards set by the American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society is difficult. The aim of this study was to compare forced expiratory volume in 3 s (FEV(3)) and forced expiratory volume in 6 s (FEV(6)) with forced vital capacity (FVC), and forced expiratory volume in 1 s FEV(1)/FEV(3) and FEV(1)/FEV(6) with FEV(1)/FVC, in order to substitute the usual spirometric manoeuvres with manoeuvres that are easier to perform.
In a cross-sectional study, spirometry was performed for 588 subjects who were referred for occupational health evaluations. The accuracy of FEV(3), FEV(6), FEV(1)/FEV(3) and FEV(1)/FEV(6) was compared with that of FVC and FEV(1)/FVC. Chi-square tests and kappa tests were used to analyse the data.
Individuals with normal (n = 297) and abnormal spirometry (n = 291) were evaluated. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of FEV(1) /FEV(6) , as compared with that of FEV(1)/FVC for detecting obstruction, were 93.56, 99.32, 98.95 and 96.09, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of FEV(6), as compared with that of FVC for detecting restriction, were 96.68, 98.65, 96.68 and 98.65, respectively.
FEV(6) and FEV(1)/FEV(6) can be used as surrogates for FVC and FEV(1)/FVC, respectively, and these parameters showed acceptable sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for occupational health evaluations.
肺功能测试在肺部疾病的管理中发挥着重要作用。其中一种广泛应用的测试是肺活量测定法。根据美国胸科学会/欧洲呼吸学会设定的标准进行可接受的肺活量测定法操作具有一定难度。本研究旨在比较第 3 秒用力呼气量（FEV3）和第 6 秒用力呼气量（FEV6）与用力肺活量（FVC），以及第 1 秒用力呼气量（FEV1）/FEV3 和 FEV1/FEV6 与 FEV1/FVC 的相关性，以替代通常的肺活量测定法操作。
在一项横断面研究中，对 588 名因职业健康评估而接受检查的个体进行了肺活量测定法检查。比较了 FEV3、FEV6、FEV1/FEV3 和 FEV1/FEV6 与 FVC 和 FEV1/FVC 的准确性。采用卡方检验和 Kappa 检验进行数据分析。
评估了肺功能正常（n = 297）和异常（n = 291）的个体。FEV1/FEV6 与 FEV1/FVC 相比，在检测阻塞方面的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为 93.56、99.32、98.95 和 96.09。FEV6 与 FVC 相比，在检测限制方面的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为 96.68、98.65、96.68 和 98.65。
FEV6 和 FEV1/FEV6 可分别作为 FVC 和 FEV1/FVC 的替代物，并且这些参数在职业健康评估中具有可接受的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值。
