Margolis M L, Montoya F J, Palma W R
Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and the Department of Medicine, Medical College of Pennsylvania, 19104, USA.
South Med J. 1997 Dec;90(12):1187-91.
Although 95th percentile-based normal limits are recommended instead of conventional criteria of normality to guide pulmonary function test (PFT) readings, we have found no objective assessment of how the choice of normal limits might influence PFT interpretation.
We did a retrospective comparison of PFT readings referenced to conventional criteria of normality versus independent repeat assessments influenced by 95th percentile-based normal limits in 166 veterans. We also conducted a nationwide telephone survey of VA Hospital PFT laboratories.
Discordant readings occurred in only 7.2% of 616 individual PFTs; however, these discrepancies could potentially influence at least one component of the PFT report of 26.5% of our subjects. The 95th percentile-based normal limits were used by only 40% of VA PFT laboratories, without relationship to geography or hospital size.
Discrepancies between 95th percentile-based and conventional normal limits can potentially influence PFT readings, and 95th percentile-based criteria are not used in the majority of VA PFT laboratories.
尽管推荐使用基于第95百分位数的正常范围来替代传统的正常标准以指导肺功能测试（PFT）结果解读，但我们尚未发现关于正常范围的选择如何影响PFT解读的客观评估。
我们对166名退伍军人的PFT结果进行了回顾性比较，这些结果分别参照传统正常标准以及受基于第95百分位数的正常范围影响的独立重复评估。我们还对退伍军人事务部（VA）医院的PFT实验室进行了全国性电话调查。
在616项个体PFT中，仅有7.2%出现了不一致的结果；然而，这些差异可能会影响我们26.5%受试者的PFT报告的至少一个部分。仅40%的VA PFT实验室使用基于第95百分位数的正常范围，这与地理位置或医院规模无关。
基于第95百分位数的正常范围与传统正常范围之间的差异可能会影响PFT结果解读，并且大多数VA PFT实验室未使用基于第95百分位数的标准。
