Chaiwong Warawut, Uthaikhup Sureeporn, Liwsrisakun Chalerm, Pothirat Chaicharn
Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Allergy, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Associated Medical Sciences, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
J Thorac Dis. 2019 Jan;11(1):113-122. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2018.11.06.
Use of different spirometry reference equations can lead to misinterpretation of spirometry results. Currently, no study has been carried out to determine if there is any discordance between the interpretation of spirometry data using the Global Lungs Initiative (GLI) 2012, the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III), the Knudson, and the Siriraj reference equations in Thai people. Therefore, this study aimed to determine differences and agreements regarding spirometry results using the GLI2012, NHANES III, Knudson, and Siriraj reference equations in a Thai population.
A retrospective study was carried out using 2,492 spirometry results from Thai people (age ranged 8-80 years old) who were referred by their physicians for spirometry testing at the Lung Health Center, Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital, Chiang Mai, Thailand between January 2005 and December 2015. The spirometry results were interpreted using four reference equations. Respiratory function patterns were classified as normal, spirometric restriction, obstruction, or mixed defect. The severity of abnormal patterns were classified as mild, moderate, moderately severe, severe or very severe. A Nominal Analysis of Variance (NANOVA) test was used to analyze differences in diagnosis and classification for the degree of severity. The Kappa statistic was used to determine agreements of spirometry results between four reference equations.
The differentiation in both spirometry diagnosis and the severity classification were significant across the four reference equations (P<0.001). However, the levels of agreement among the four reference equations were moderate to good (Kappa values ranged from 0.56 to 0.77 for the diagnosis and 0.67 to 0.82 for the severity).
The results of this study suggest that the use of the GLI2012, NHANES III, Knudson, and Siriraj reference equations alters the interpretation of spirometry data in this population of Thai adults.
使用不同的肺量计参考方程可能导致对肺量计结果的错误解读。目前,尚未开展研究来确定在泰国人群中,使用全球肺部倡议(GLI)2012、第三次全国健康和营养检查调查(NHANES III)、克努森(Knudson)以及诗里拉吉(Siriraj)参考方程解读肺量计数据时是否存在不一致。因此,本研究旨在确定在泰国人群中,使用GLI2012、NHANES III、克努森和诗里拉吉参考方程时肺量计结果的差异与一致性。
进行一项回顾性研究,使用2492例泰国人(年龄在8至80岁之间)的肺量计结果,这些人于2005年1月至2015年12月期间被其医生转诊至泰国清迈玛哈拉吉·那空清迈医院肺部健康中心进行肺量计检测。使用四个参考方程解读肺量计结果。呼吸功能模式分为正常、肺量计受限、阻塞或混合性缺陷。异常模式的严重程度分为轻度、中度、中重度、重度或极重度。使用名义方差分析(NANOVA)检验分析诊断和严重程度分类的差异。使用kappa统计量确定四个参考方程之间肺量计结果的一致性。
在四个参考方程中,肺量计诊断和严重程度分类的差异均具有显著性(P<0.001)。然而,四个参考方程之间的一致性水平为中等至良好(诊断的kappa值范围为0.56至0.77,严重程度的kappa值范围为0.67至0.82)。
本研究结果表明,使用GLI2012、NHANES III、克努森和诗里拉吉参考方程会改变该泰国成年人群体中肺量计数据的解读。