Tuberc Respir Dis.  2021 Oct;84(4):274-281. 10.4046/trd.2021.0016.

Reliability of Portable Spirometry Performed in the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Compared to Conventional Spirometry

Affiliations
  • 1Department of Internal Medicine, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
  • 2Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea
  • 3Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
  • 4Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Hallym University Kangdong Sacred Heart Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Abstract

Background
The Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES) is a well-designed survey to collect national data, which many researchers have used for their studies. In KNHANES, although portable spirometry was used, its reliability has not been verified.
Methods
We prospectively enrolled 58 participants from four Korean institutions. The participants were classified into normal pattern, obstructive pattern, and restrictive pattern groups according to their previous spirometry results. Lung function was estimated by conventional spirometry and portable spirometry, and the results were compared.
Results
The intraclass correlation coefficients of forced vital capacity (FVC) (coefficient, 9.993; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.988–0.996), forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) (coefficient, 0.997; 95% CI, 0.995–0.998), FEV1/FVC ratio (coefficient, 0.995; 95% CI, 0.992–0.997), and forced expiratory flow at 25–75% (FEF25–75%; coefficient, 0.991; 95% CI, 0.984–0.994) were excellent (all p<0.001). In the subgroup analysis, the results of the three parameters were similar in all groups. In the overall and subgroup analyses, Pearson’s correlation of all the parameters was also excellent in the total (coefficient, 0.986–0.994; p<0.001) and subgroup analyses (coefficient, 0.915–0.995; p<0.001). In the paired t-test, FVC, FEV1/FVC, and FEF25–75% estimated by the two instruments were statistically different. However, FEV1 was not significantly different.
Conclusion
Lung function estimated by portable spirometry was well-correlated with that estimated by conventional spirometry. Although the values had minimal differences between them, we suggest that the spirometry results from the KNHANES are reliable.

Keyword

Pulmonary Function Test; Reliability; Spirometry
Full Text Links
  • TRD
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr