Inter-laboratory comparison of flow–volume curve measurements as quality control procedure in the framework of an international epidemiological study (PEACE project)

Viegi, Giovanni; Simoni, Marzia; Pistelli, Francesco; Englert, Nadine C.; Salonen, Riitta; Niepsuj, G; Hałuszka, J; Roemer, W.

doi:10.1053/rmed.1999.0672

Cited by 12 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A simple quality control protocol may be carried out, such as biological calibration, by comparing data measured in the same subjects (e.g. five to 10 subjects) and obtained with both the local instrument and a portable instrument designed as a ''reference instrument'' [148].…”

Section: Quality Control During Field Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recommendations for epidemiological studies on COPD

Bakke¹,

Rönmark²,

Eagan³

et al. 2011

Eur Respir J

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been extensively studied, especially in Western Europe and North America. Few of these data are directly comparable because of differences between the surveys regarding composition of study populations, diagnostic criteria of the disease and definitions of the risk factors. Few community studies have examined phenotypes of COPD and included other ways of characterising the disease beyond that of spirometry.The objective of the present Task Force report is to present recommendations for the performance of general population studies in COPD in order to facilitate comparable and valid estimates on COPD prevalence by various risk factors.Diagnostic criteria in epidemiological settings, and standardised methods to examine the disease and its potential risk factors are discussed. The paper also offers practical advice for planning and performing an epidemiological study on COPD.The main message of the paper is that thorough planning is worth half the study. It is crucial to stick to standardised methods and good quality control during sampling. We recommend collecting biological markers, depending on the specific objectives of the study. Finally, studies of COPD in the population at large should assess various phenotypes of the disease.

show abstract

Section: Quality Control During Field Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recommendations for epidemiological studies on COPD

Bakke¹,

Rönmark²,

Eagan³

et al. 2011

Eur Respir J

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several studies have assessed the comparability between spirometers meeting the American Thoracic Society (ATS)/European Respiratory Society (ERS) recommendations both in clinical and epidemiological settings [1][2][3][4][5][6] . Differences between spirometers reported in these studies varied from 0.07 to 0.41 liters (forced vital capacity, FVC) and from 0.05 to 0.11 liters (forced expiratory flow in 1 s, FEV 1 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Agreement between Spirometers: A Challenge in the Follow-Up of Patients and Populations?

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Long-term cohort studies and lung function laboratories are confronted with the need for replacement of spirometers. Lack of agreement between spirometers might affect the longitudinal comparison of data, notably when replacing conventional by portable spirometers. Objectives: To compare the handheld EasyOne (EO) with the conventional SensorMedics (SM) spirometer, and to analyze the interdevice reproducibility of EO spirometers. Methods: In total, 82 volunteers completed spirometry sessions with 1 SM and 2 of 3 EO spirometers following a Latin square design. Analyses of differences in forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory flow in 1 s (FEV₁), FEV₁/FVC and mean forced expiratory flow calculated between 25 and 75% of the FVC between spirometers used a mixed effect model with a random intercept for each subject and the effect of the device as fixed effect adjusted for sex, age, height and order of spirometer tested. Bland-Altman plots show the 95% limits of agreement. Results: Comparisons between EO and SM showed relatively small mean differences of <3%, but systematically lower values for FVC and FEV₁ in all EO devices. The 95% agreement exceeded the limits for FEV₁ by 50 ml in 2 EO spirometers. The EO interdevice comparisons showed mean differences and limits of agreement within established thresholds, thus indicating fair accuracy when comparing devices. Repeats with the same spirometer did not result in statistically significant differences. Conclusions: This study suggests fair agreement between the handheld and the conventional spirometer. Differences slightly exceeding limits for FEV₁ in 2 EO devices might be considered mostly irrelevant for clinical practice. However, the systematically lower FVC and FEV₁ observed with EO may be significant for epidemiological studies, thus justifying inspection before replacing devices.

show abstract

“…6,17 It is possible that differences in spirometry measurements or the instruments used may lead to confounding variance in the data collected between the numerous sites of largescale studies, such as UPLIFT Ò . 18,19 As the UPLIFT Ò trial was conducted across 487 sites, it was important to employ standardized spirometry methodology, including identical systems and training for all technicians, and customized, study-specific software. These control measures reduced the likelihood of variability caused by inter-center differences in the recording or analysis of lung function data.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%