2022•BMC Pulmonary MedicineOpen access

Validity of a portable spirometer in the communities of China

Shan Xiao, Fan Wu, Zihui Wang, Jianmin Chen, Huajing Yang, Youlan Zheng, Zhishan Deng, Jieqi Peng, Xiang Bing Wen, Peiyu Huang, Cuiqiong Dai, Lifei Lu, Ningning Zhao, Pixin Ran, Yumin Zhou

Open full text 17 citations

Abstract

Abstract Background The lack of simple and affordable spirometry has led to the missed and delayed diagnoses of chronic respiratory diseases in communities. The PUS201P is a portable spirometry developed to solve this problem. Objective We aimed to verify the consistency of the PUS201P spirometer with conventional Jaeger spirometer. Methods In this cross-sectional study, we randomly recruited 202 subjects aged > 40 years. Testing with the portable spirometry and conventional spirometry were performed on all participants. We compared forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), FEV1/FVC measured by the PUS201P device with the conventional spirometer. Pearson correlation coefficient and Interclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) were assessed to confirm the consistency of the measures from two instruments. Bland–Altman graph was created to assess the agreement of the measures from two devices. Results 202 participants were included in this study. The ICC on FEV1, FVC, FEV1/FVC measured by the portable spirometer and the conventional spirometer were 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94–0.96), 0.92 (95% CI: 0.90–0.94], 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91–0.95), respectively. The Bland–Altman plots showed that the mean difference between the measures from two spirometers are always located in the 95% limits of agreement. Conclusions Our results support that the measures from the portable spirometer and the conventional spirometer have a good agreement and reproducibility. And the portable spirometer is a reliable tool to screen and diagnose chronic airway diseases in the primary care settings.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Abstract Background The lack of simple and affordable spirometry has led to the missed and delayed diagnoses of chronic respiratory diseases in communities. The PUS201P is a portable spirometry developed to solve this problem. Objective We aimed to verify the consistency of the PUS201P spirometer with conventional Jaeger spirometer. Methods In this cross-sectional study, we randomly recruited 202 subjects aged > 40 years. Testing with the portable spirometry and conventional spirometry were performed on all participants. We compared forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), FEV1/FVC measured by the PUS201P device with the conventional spirometer. Pearson correlation coefficient and Interclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) were assessed to confirm the consistency of the measures from two instruments. Bland–Altman graph was created to assess the agreement of the measures from two devices. Results 202 participants were included in this study. The ICC on FEV1, FVC, FEV1/FVC measured by the portable spirometer and the conventional spirometer were 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94–0.96), 0.92 (95% CI: 0.90–0.94], 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91–0.95), respectively. The Bland–Altman plots showed that the mean difference between the measures from two spirometers are always located in the 95% limits of agreement. Conclusions Our results support that the measures from the portable spirometer and the conventional spirometer have a good agreement and reproducibility. And the portable spirometer is a reliable tool to screen and diagnose chronic airway diseases in the primary care settings.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 17 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Abstract Background The lack of simple and affordable spirometry has led to the missed and delayed diagnoses of chronic respiratory diseases in communities. The PUS201P is a portable spirometry developed to solve this problem. Objective We aimed to verify the consistency of the PUS201P spirometer with conventional Jaeger spirometer. Methods In this cross-sectional study, we randomly recruited 202 subjects aged > 40 years. Testing with the portable spirometry and conventional spirometry were performed on all participants. We compared forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), FEV1/FVC measured by the PUS201P device with the conventional spirometer. Pearson correlation coefficient and Interclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) were assessed to confirm the consistency of the measures from two instruments. Bland–Altman graph was created to assess the agreement of the measures from two devices. Results 202 participants were included in this study. The ICC on FEV1, FVC, FEV1/FVC measured by the portable spirometer and the conventional spirometer were 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94–0.96), 0.92 (95% CI: 0.90–0.94], 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91–0.95), respectively. The Bland–Altman plots showed that the mean difference between the measures from two spirometers are always located in the 95% limits of agreement. Conclusions Our results support that the measures from the portable spirometer and the conventional spirometer have a good agreement and reproducibility. And the portable spirometer is a reliable tool to screen and diagnose chronic airway diseases in the primary care settings.

Key concepts: Spirometer, Spirometry, Medicine, Physical therapy, Vital capacity, Intraclass correlation, Confidence interval, Bland–Altman plot

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Validity of a portable spirometer in the communities of China — Research Paper | ScholarLens