Performance testing for different peak expiratory flow meters.

BACKGROUND

Peak expiratory flow meters (PEFMs) have emerged as primary tools used for diagnosing and monitoring a range of respiratory diseases including asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and the performance of these meters will thus impact disease evaluation.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was therefore to assess the technical performance of mechanical and electronic PEFMs commonly used in clinical practice.

METHODS

The accuracy, repeatability, airflow resistance, frequency response, and linearity of five electronic and seven mechanical PEFMs were measured using a standard flow/volume simulator in accordance with nine A-waveforms and three B-waveforms defined in ISO 23747:2015 issued by the International Standards Organization (ISO).

RESULTS

The accuracy, repeatability, linearity, airflow resistance, and frequency response pass rates for these 12 different PEFM brands were 41.67%, 75.00%, 50.00%, 75.00%, and 25.00%, respectively. Just 16.67% (2/12) of the tested PEFMs met all evaluated criteria, whereas the remaining PEFMs partially met these criteria. There were no significant differences between the two tested PEFM types in the low flow rate waveform test (P> 0.05), although there were significant differences in the medium and high flow rate waveform test (P< 0.05). In addition, the overall PEFMs test had poor accuracy and good repeatability, although most of the repeatability errors occurred in the BTPS state.

CONCLUSION

PEFMs commonly used in clinical settings exhibit variable technical performance, and relevant departments need to strengthen PEFM quality control and management in China.