1997
DOI: 10.3109/02770909709075654
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison Between Peak Expiratory Flow and Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second (FEV1) During Bronchoconstriction Induced by Different Stimuli

Abstract: To evaluate the sensitivity of peak expiratory flow (PEF), obtained by portable peak flow meter, in detecting mild changes in airway caliber as assessed by forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1), we studied 184 subjects who underwent different bronchial challenge tests for suspected bronchial asthma. We measured FEV1 and PEF during bronchoconstriction induced by different stimuli: allergen, methacholine, toluene diisocyanate vapors, exercise, or distilled water inhalation; a total of 186 tests were examined.… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
25
0
1

Year Published

2001
2001
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
1
25
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Most investigators use spirometry, although some have used peak flow meters [12]. Considering the low sensitivity of peak expiratory flow measured using portable peak flow meters [22], spirometry is preferable. The relative advantages of frequent versus occasional monitoring of lung function have not been formally studied.…”
Section: Pulmonary Function Monitoringmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most investigators use spirometry, although some have used peak flow meters [12]. Considering the low sensitivity of peak expiratory flow measured using portable peak flow meters [22], spirometry is preferable. The relative advantages of frequent versus occasional monitoring of lung function have not been formally studied.…”
Section: Pulmonary Function Monitoringmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…PEF is not able to assess bronchodilator response compared to FEV1 (DPEF of o10%, o15%, o20% baseline has a positive predicting value of 36%, 52%, and 67%, respectively for DFEV1 o9% pred) [43]. During acute bronchoconstriction induced by different stimuli in the laboratory, the concordance (Cohen9s weighted kappa) between classes of changes in FEV1 and PEF was low (0.28-0.42 in different challenges) [44]. The sensitivity of PEF in detecting mild, induced bronchoconstriction was lower than FEV1, with a 10% change in PEF resulting in a 15% change in FEV1 ( fig.…”
Section: Technical Considerationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The sensitivity of PEF in detecting mild, induced bronchoconstriction was lower than FEV1, with a 10% change in PEF resulting in a 15% change in FEV1 ( fig. 1) [44].…”
Section: Technical Considerationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If the origin of the exposure, e.g. a physical form of gas or mixtures, is not clear, an environment provocation test made at the workplace of the patients by means of observation of the appearance of the symptoms and lung function changes may be necessary (23,24). If causative allergens are clear, they may be used to examine skin reactions and to detect specific-IgE antibodies.…”
Section: Diagnosismentioning
confidence: 99%