Glindmeyer H W, Anderson S T, Diem J E, Weill H
Chest. 1978 May;73(5):596-62. doi: 10.1378/chest.73.5.596.
A comparison was made between the noncounterweighted Jones and Stead-Wells spirometers, and "conversion factors" were determined for the forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and the forced vital capacity (FVC). A cross-sectional study produced a high correlation between the instruments for these two measurements, yielding quadratic and linear regression equations ("conversion factors") for FEV1 and FVC, respectively. Standard deviations of measurements were similar for both spirometers. Results from a longitudinal study agreed with the "conversion factors" predicted from the cross-sectional study; however, significant day-to-day variability was observed by both spirometers. Neither spirometer met all of the technical recommendations proposed by the Committees on Environmental Health and Respiratory Physiology of the American College of Chest Physicians; however, the Stead-Wells water-sealed spirometer complied more often than the Jones waterless spirometer (Pulmonor). In addition, the open-circuit procedure used for the Jones spirometer required more corrdination in the subject than did the closed-circuit procedure employed in this study for the Stead-Wells spirometer; however, with application of the "conversion factors," both instruments, yield comparable data and prove adequate for spirometric studies.
对无配重的琼斯肺活量计和斯特德 - 韦尔斯肺活量计进行了比较，并确定了一秒用力呼气量（FEV1）和用力肺活量（FVC）的“转换因子”。一项横断面研究显示，这两种测量仪器之间存在高度相关性，分别得出了FEV1和FVC的二次回归方程和线性回归方程（“转换因子”）。两种肺活量计测量的标准差相似。一项纵向研究的结果与横断面研究所预测的“转换因子”一致；然而，两种肺活量计均观察到显著的每日变异性。两种肺活量计均未完全符合美国胸科医师学会环境卫生与呼吸生理学委员会提出的所有技术建议；然而，斯特德 - 韦尔斯水封式肺活量计比琼斯无水肺活量计（Pulmonor）更符合要求。此外，琼斯肺活量计使用的开路程序比本研究中斯特德 - 韦尔斯肺活量计采用的闭路程序需要受试者更多的配合；然而，应用“转换因子”后，两种仪器产生的数据相当，证明足以用于肺活量测定研究。
