Sorensen J B, Morris A H, Crapo R O, Gardner R M
Am Rev Respir Dis. 1980 Nov;122(5):802-5. doi: 10.1164/arrd.1980.122.5.802.
Selection of spirometric test values for reporting and interpretation has recently received considerable attention. In 1977, the American Thoracic Society (ATS) Snowbird Workshop on Standardization of Spirometry recommended that the maximal values for FVC and FEV1 be used for clinical interpretation, even if they came from different spirometric tracings. The Intermountain Thoracic Society (ITS) had recommended in 1975 that FVC and FEV1, be reported from the single tracings, using the largest sum of FVC plus FEV1 (best test). We evaluated the results of 1,853 spirometric test sessions in 1,101 subjects (923 hospital patients and 178 normal volunteers). The mean difference between the 2 test selection methods cited above was 5.8 ml for FVC and 8.4 ml for FEV1. In 98.4% of the FVC comparisons and 95.7% of the FEV1 comparisons, the differences were within the minimal instrument accuracy standard (+/- 50 ml or +/- 3% of the reading) suggested by the ATS. Differences between maximal and best test FVC and FEV1 were small. The selection of values for interpretation from the best test did not compromise accuracy, and was a simpler and more practical method for reporting clinical spirometric results.
用于报告和解读的肺量计测试值的选择最近受到了广泛关注。1977年，美国胸科学会（ATS）肺量计标准化雪鸟研讨会建议，即使FVC和FEV1的最大值来自不同的肺量计描记图，也应将其用于临床解读。山间胸科学会（ITS）在1975年曾建议，应从单次描记图中报告FVC和FEV1，使用FVC加FEV1的最大总和（最佳测试）。我们评估了1101名受试者（923名住院患者和178名正常志愿者）的1853次肺量计测试结果。上述两种测试选择方法之间FVC的平均差异为5.8毫升，FEV1的平均差异为8.4毫升。在98.4%的FVC比较和95.7%的FEV1比较中，差异在ATS建议的最小仪器精度标准（±50毫升或读数的±3%）范围内。最大测试值与最佳测试值的FVC和FEV1之间差异很小。从最佳测试中选择用于解读的值不会影响准确性，并且是报告临床肺量计结果的一种更简单、更实用的方法。
