2013
DOI: 10.1111/crj.12038
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Spirometric reference values for healthy nonsmoking Saudi adults

Abstract: The reference spirometric values derived in our study were significantly lower than the predicted values derived by the American equations.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
5
0
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
2
5
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This result was also in line with the previous studies Percent predicted mean FVC and FEV of male respondents were higher than females. The fi nding was similar to previously published articles as mean personal percent predicted pulmonary functions tests were higher than females [20][21][22][23]. Pulmonary function test parameters, FVC, FEV, and PEFR, among chewer, were found to be higher than nonchewers.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…This result was also in line with the previous studies Percent predicted mean FVC and FEV of male respondents were higher than females. The fi nding was similar to previously published articles as mean personal percent predicted pulmonary functions tests were higher than females [20][21][22][23]. Pulmonary function test parameters, FVC, FEV, and PEFR, among chewer, were found to be higher than nonchewers.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…The evaluation of the regional equations indicated that Al Ghobain et al's equation, which was formulated based on Saudi Arabian population, 13 was the most suitable for our sample in males as compared to other regional equations studied including Sliman et al's equation using Jordanian population. 28 This number is lower than 150 males and 150 females set by ERS as the lowest sample size necessary to validate reference values to avoid spurious differences due to sampling errors.…”
Section: Comparison With Other Regional Reference Equationsmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…Predicted normal values were calculated for each participant using different reference equations including the GLI 2012 Caucasian equation, GLI 2012 other or mixed ethnicity equation, 5 the Omani equation formulated by Al-Rawas et al, 12 the Saudi Arabian equation formulated by Al Ghobain et al 13 and a Jordanian equation that was published in 1981 by Sliman et al 14 z-scores for FEV1, FVC and FEV1/FVC for each participant were produced using the different reference equations studied, as done in a previous study. 15 Normal distribution assumption of the z-scores for each equation was evaluated by examining the Q-Q plots, evaluation of skewness and kurtosis and performing Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In a study in which smokers were invited to switch to an e-cigarette and abstain from smoking, the FEF 25-75% increased significantly (p ¼ 0.034) from 85.7% to 100.8% predicted over 52 weeks (Cibella et al 2016). There are, however, several reasons why the FEF 25-75% may not be useful: it is dependent upon the FVC, it lacks the repeatability of FEV 1 , it has a wide normal range (Quanjer et al 2012b, Al Ghobain et al 2014, Balasubramaniam et al 2014, Gutierrez et al 2014, Rufino et al 2017 and it is reduced in the presence of proximal airway narrowing (Johns et al 2014). These drawbacks severely limit the use of FEF 25-75% for diagnostic purposes, but might not preclude its use in aetiological studies where differences between groups may be valuable.…”
Section: Search Numbermentioning
confidence: 99%