These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Performance of a new screening spirometer at a community health fair.
    Author: Schoh RJ, Fero LJ, Shapiro H, Aslor JP, Kaelin OJ, Rollins DR, Petty TL.
    Journal: Respir Care; 2002 Oct; 47(10):1150-7. PubMed ID: 12354333.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: Compare the results from a new screening spirometer (EasyOne) with the results from a standard laboratory spirometer (Vmax) approved by the American Thoracic Society. SETTING: A health fair at a community hospital. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: Correlations 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). CONCLUSION: The new screening spirometer is suitable for clinical use.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]