Comparison of two new methods for the measurement of lung volumes with two standard methods

被引:15
|
作者
Cliff, IJ
Evans, AH
Pantin, CFA
Baldwin, DR
机构
[1] City Hosp Nottingham, Dept Resp Med, Nottingham NG5 1PB, England
[2] City Gen Hosp, Dept Resp Med, Stoke On Trent ST4 6QG, Staffs, England
关键词
lung volumes; measurement; mathematical modelling; nitrogen balance;
D O I
10.1136/thx.54.4.329
中图分类号
R56 [呼吸系及胸部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Background-The two most commonly used methods for the measurement of lung volumes are helium dilution and body plethysmography. Two methods have been developed which are both easier and less time consuming to perform. Mathematical modelling uses complex calculations from the flow-volume loop to derive total lung capacity (TLC), and the nitrogen balance technique uses nitrogen from the atmosphere to calculate lung volume in a similar way to helium dilution. This study was designed to compare the two new methods with the two standard methods. Methods-Sixty one subjects were studied, 23 with normal lung function, 17 with restrictive airway disease, and 21 with obstructive ventilatory defects. Each subject underwent repeated measurements of TLC by each of the four methods in random order. Reproducible values were obtained for each method according to BTS/ARTP guidelines. Bland-Altman plots were constructed for comparisons between the methods and paired t tests were used to assess differences in means. Results-Bland-Altman plots showed that the differences between body plethysmography and helium dilution fell into clinically acceptable ranges (agreement Limits +/-0.91). The agreement between mathematical modelling or the nitrogen balance technique and helium dilution or body plethysmography was poor (+/-1.8-3.41), especially for subjects with airflow obstruction. Conclusions-Neither of the new methods agrees sufficiently with standard methods to be useful in a clinical setting.
引用
收藏
页码:329 / 333
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Standard setting: Comparison of two methods
    George S.
    Haque M.S.
    Oyebode F.
    BMC Medical Education, 6 (1)
  • [2] Comparison of two Methods for Malondialdehyde Measurement
    Al-Fawaeir, Saad
    Akgul, E. Ozgur
    Cayci, Tuncer
    Demirin, Hilmi
    Kurt, Yasemin Gulcan
    Aydin, Ibrahim
    Agilli, Mehmet
    Ozkan, Esin
    Yaman, Halil
    Cakir, Erdinc
    Erbil, M. Kemal
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND ANALYTICAL MEDICINE, 2011, 2 (02) : 11 - 14
  • [3] A comparison of two methods for segmentation of functional volumes in radiotherapy planning of lung cancer patients
    Nyeng, T. B.
    Moller, D. S.
    Farr, K.
    Kramer, S.
    Khalil, A. A.
    Grau, C.
    Hoffmann, L.
    ACTA ONCOLOGICA, 2021, 60 (03) : 353 - 360
  • [4] Comparison of Two Methods for Phase Angle Measurement
    Velychko, Oleh
    Isaiev, Valentyn
    IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT, 2019, 68 (06) : 1740 - 1747
  • [5] Comparison of two methods for the measurement of cortisol in urine
    Tahiri, N.
    Castillo, C.
    Cebrian Ballesteros, M.
    Loscocco, N.
    Prados, A.
    Urbina Lima, M. C.
    CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA, 2024, 558
  • [6] Measurement of thrombus formation: Comparison of two methods
    Harsfalvi, J
    CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA, 2005, 355 : S206 - S206
  • [7] Light measurement in the hospital: A comparison of two methods
    Higgins, Patricia A.
    Winkelman, Chris
    Lipson, Amy R.
    Guo, Su-Er
    Rodgers, James
    RESEARCH IN NURSING & HEALTH, 2007, 30 (01) : 120 - 128
  • [8] Comparison of two methods for the measurement of sperm concentration
    Sokol, RZ
    Shulman, P
    Paulson, RJ
    FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2000, 73 (03) : 591 - 594
  • [9] Comparison of two methods for measurement of equine insulin
    Banse, Heidi E.
    McCann, Joseph
    Yang, Fan
    Wagg, Catherine
    McFarlane, Dianne
    JOURNAL OF VETERINARY DIAGNOSTIC INVESTIGATION, 2014, 26 (04) : 527 - 530
  • [10] Comparison of two methods for measurement of equine adrenocorticotropin
    Banse, Heidi E.
    Schultz, Nichol
    McCue, Molly
    Geor, Ray
    McFarlane, Dianne
    JOURNAL OF VETERINARY DIAGNOSTIC INVESTIGATION, 2018, 30 (02) : 233 - 237