ArticlePLOS global public health2022
Differences and agreement between two portable hand-held spirometers across diverse community-based populations in the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of a portable, pneumotach flow-sensor-based spirometer (Spirofy™) with the vitalograph alpha Touch™ spirometer in evaluating lung function in healthy individuals, asthmatics, and COPD patients-a randomized, crossover study.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2024Trial
- Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Infection on Pulmonary Function in the PURE-Colombia Cohort: A Comparative Analysis with Pre-COVID Values and Non-COVID-19 Controls.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Prediction of Lung Function Status Using Handgrip Strength and Anthropometry among the Healthy Malay Population in Malaysia.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Household Air Pollution and Adult Lung Function Change, Respiratory Disease, and Mortality across Eleven Low- and Middle-Income Countries from the PURE Study.Environmental health perspectives · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPortable spirometers are commonly used in longitudinal epidemiological studies to measure and track the forced expiratory volume in first second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC). During the course of the study, it may be necessary to replace spirometers with a different model. This raise questions regarding the comparability of measurements from different devices. We examined the correlation, mean differences and agreement between two different spirometers, across diverse populations and different participant characteristics.
methodsFrom June 2015 to Jan 2018, a total of 4,603 adults were enrolled from 628 communities in 18 countries and 7 regions of the world. Each participant performed concurrent measurements from the MicroGP and EasyOne spirometer. Measurements were compared by the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman method.
resultsApproximately 65% of the participants achieved clinically acceptable quality measurements. Overall correlations between paired FEV1 (ICC 0.88 [95% CI 0.87, 0.88]) and FVC (ICC 0.84 [0.83, 0.85]) were high. Mean differences between paired FEV1 (-0.038 L [-0.053, -0.023]) and FVC (0.033 L [0.012, 0.054]) were small. The 95% limits of agreement were wide but unbiased (FEV1 984, -1060; FVC 1460, -1394). Similar findings were observed across regions. The source of variation between spirometers was mainly at the participant level. Older age, higher body mass index, tobacco smoking and known COPD/asthma did not adversely impact on the inter-device variability. Furthermore, there were small and acceptable mean differences between paired FEV1 and FVC z-scores using the Global Lung Initiative normative values, suggesting minimal impact on lung function interpretation.
conclusionsIn this multicenter, diverse community-based cohort study, measurements from two portable spirometers provided good correlation, small and unbiased differences between measurements. These data support their interchangeable use across diverse populations to provide accurate trends in serial lung function measurements in epidemiological studies.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.