• Robin J Schoh, Laura J Fero, Howard Shapiro, Jordan P Aslor, Oscar J Kaelin, Donald R Rollins, and Thomas L Petty.
• National Lung Health Education Program, 899 Logan St, 2nd Floor, Denver CO 80203-3130, USA.
• Resp Care. 2002 Oct 1;47(10):1150-7.

ObjectiveCompare the results from a new screening spirometer (EasyOne) with the results from a standard laboratory spirometer (Vmax) approved by the American Thoracic Society.SettingA health fair at a community hospital.MethodsWe measured forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV(1)) and forced expiratory volume in the first 6 seconds (FEV(6)). With the screening spirometer, good quality testing was achieved in 359 of 394 subjects (91%), and 115 subjects were also tested with the standard laboratory spirometer. The best test values for FEV(1) and FEV(6) were taken for 3 tests that agreed within 3%. FEV(6) was extrapolated from forced vital capacity on the printouts from the standard laboratory spirometer.ResultsCorrelations between the screening spirometer results and the standard laboratory spirometer were excellent for FEV(1) (r = 0.93), FEV(6) (r = 0.96), and FEV(1)/FEV(6) (r = 0.72) (p = 0.001 for all comparisons). The 95% limits of agreement (mean difference between the 2 spirometers +/- 1.96 standard deviations) were: -0.18 and 0.69 for FEV(1); -0.24 and 0.81 for FEV(6); and -0.12 and 0.13 for FEV(1)/FEV(6).ConclusionThe new screening spirometer is suitable for clinical use.

17 keywords...

hide…