University of Adelaide Library

Adelaide Research and Scholarship : Schools and Disciplines : School of Population Health & Clinical Practice : General Practice : General Practice publications

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2440/73084

Type: Journal article
Title: Accuracy and precision of desktop spirometers in general practices
Author: Schermer, T.
Verweij, E.
Cretier, R.
Pellegrino, A.
Crockett, A.
Poels, P.
Citation: Respiration, 2012; 83(4):344-352
Publisher: Karger
Issue Date: 2012
ISSN: 0025-7931
1423-0356
Statement of
Responsibility: 
Tjard R.J. Schermer, Eddy H.A. Verweij, Riet Cretier, Annelies Pellegrino, Alan J. Crockett, Patrick J.P. Poels
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Spirometry has become an essential tool for general practices to diagnose and monitor chronic airways diseases, but very little is known about the performance of the spirometry equipment that is being used in general practice settings. The use of invalid spirometry equipment may have consequences on disease diagnosis and management of patients. OBJECTIVES: To establish the accuracy and precision of desktop spirometers that are routinely used in general practices. METHODS: We evaluated a random sample of 50 spirometers from Dutch general practices by testing them on a certified waveform generator using 8 standard American Thoracic Society waveforms to determine accuracy and precision. Details about the brand and type of spirometers, year of purchase, frequency of use, cleaning and calibration were inquired with a study-specific questionnaire. RESULTS: 39 devices (80%) were turbine spirometers, 8 (16%) were pneumotachographs, and 1 (2%) was a volume displacement spirometer. Mean age of the spirometers was 4.3 (SD 3.7) years. Average deviation from the waveform generator reference values (accuracy) was 25 ml (95% confidence interval 12-39 ml) for FEV(1) and 27 ml (10-45 ml) for FVC, but some devices showed substantial deviations. FEV(1) deviations were larger for pneumotachographs than for turbine spirometers (p < 0.0031), but FVC deviations did not differ between the two types of spirometers. In the subset of turbine spirometers, no association between age and device performance was observed. CONCLUSIONS: On average, desktop spirometers in general practices slightly overestimated FEV(1) and FVC values, but some devices showed substantial deviations. General practices should pay more attention to the calibration of their spirometer.
Keywords: Accuracy; Diagnosis; Equipment evaluation; General practice; Precision; Safety; Spirometry
Rights: Copyright © 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel
RMID: 0020118135
DOI: 10.1159/000334320
Appears in Collections:General Practice publications
View citing articles in: Web of Science
Google Scholar
Scopus

There are no files associated with this item.

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

 

© 2008 The University of Adelaide
library@adelaide.edu.au
CRICOS Provider Number 00123M
Service Charter | Copyright | Privacy | Disclaimer