Pardee N E, Winterbauer R H, Morgan E H, Allen J D
Thorax. 1981 Dec;36(12):928-31. doi: 10.1136/thx.36.12.928.
A standardised physical examination based on four clinical signs was compared with the FEV1 with regard to ability to determine five-year mortality risk in subjects with varying degrees of obstructive airway disease. Both evaluation methods identified low, intermediate, and high risk groups within the population studied. Individuals with no positive physical signs, or with an FEV1 of 70% of predicted or more had mortality not significantly greater than that predicted on the basis of standard mortality tables. There was no difference between the FEV1 and the physical examination in ability to predict mortality.
将基于四种临床体征的标准化体格检查与第一秒用力呼气容积(FEV1)相比较,以评估二者在确定不同程度阻塞性气道疾病患者五年死亡风险方面的能力。两种评估方法均在研究人群中识别出了低、中、高风险组。没有阳性体征或FEV1达到或超过预测值70%的个体,其死亡率并不显著高于根据标准死亡率表预测的死亡率。在预测死亡率的能力方面,FEV1与体格检查之间没有差异。