PMID- 9692113
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 19980813
LR  - 20190905
IS  - 0954-6111 (Print)
IS  - 0954-6111 (Linking)
VI  - 92
IP  - 3
DP  - 1998 Mar
TI  - Comparison of four types of portable peak flow meters (Mini-Wright, Assess, 
      Pulmo-graph and Wright Pocket meters).
PG  - 505-11
AB  - Ambulatory peak flow monitoring plays an important role in the diagnosis and 
      management of patients with bronchial asthma. Today several kinds of portable 
      peak flow meters (PFMs) are available for this purpose and sometimes comparisons 
      between the readings of different kinds of PFMs are necessary in clinical 
      setting. We compared four types of PFMs in patients with various respiratory 
      diseases. The study population consisted of 294 patients with asthma, chronic 
      obstructive pulmonary disease, diffuse panbronchiolitis and other respiratory 
      systems, and 15 healthy volunteers. Initially, subjects underwent a spirometry 
      until at least three acceptable forced expiratory curves were obtained. 
      Thereafter each subject blew into a Mini-Wright meter, Assess meter, Pulmo-graph 
      meter and Wright Pocket meter, three times in a random order, with an interval of 
      4 min. The highest value of three blows was recorded in each PFM measurement. 
      Finally, a second set of spirometric measurements were obtained. Spirometric peak 
      flow rates (PEFRs) were obtained from the best single test which gave the largest 
      sum of forced vital capacity and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1). In cases 
      when FEV1 in the first spirometry examination was less than 11 or the readings of 
      the PFM were less than 3501 min-1, low-range PFMs were used. The second 
      spirometric PEFR was used as a standard against which the reading of the PFM was 
      compared. The correlation coefficients between the readings of each PFM and 
      spirometric PEFR did not differ significantly from each other. The limits of 
      agreement between each PFM were very wide. In both low- and standard-range PFM, 
      the Assess meter had a significantly greater absolute difference from the 
      spirometric PEFR than other PFMs. In the standard range, the Wright Pocket meter 
      also had a greater difference than the Pulmo-graph meter. The standard-range 
      Assess meter tended to lose its strength of correlation with the spirometric 
      measurement at higher flow rates as did the low-range Pulmo-graph and Mini-Wright 
      meters at the lower and higher flow rates, respectively. All four types of 
      standard-range PFMs gave similarly valid values when spirometric PEFR was used as 
      a reference. However, the limit of agreement between each PFM is so wide that we 
      do not recommend the use of the readings of each meter interchangeably.
FAU - Koyama, H
AU  - Koyama H
AD  - Chest Disease Research Institute, Kyoto University, Japan.
FAU - Nishimura, K
AU  - Nishimura K
FAU - Ikeda, A
AU  - Ikeda A
FAU - Tsukino, M
AU  - Tsukino M
FAU - Izumi, T
AU  - Izumi T
LA  - eng
PT  - Clinical Trial
PT  - Comparative Study
PT  - Journal Article
PT  - Randomized Controlled Trial
PT  - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
PL  - England
TA  - Respir Med
JT  - Respiratory medicine
JID - 8908438
SB  - IM
MH  - Asthma/*physiopathology
MH  - Bronchiolitis/*physiopathology
MH  - Female
MH  - Forced Expiratory Volume
MH  - Humans
MH  - Lung Diseases, Obstructive/*physiopathology
MH  - Male
MH  - Monitoring, Ambulatory/*instrumentation
MH  - Peak Expiratory Flow Rate
MH  - Sensitivity and Specificity
MH  - Spirometry/*instrumentation/standards
MH  - Vital Capacity
EDAT- 1998/08/06 00:00
MHDA- 1998/08/06 00:01
CRDT- 1998/08/06 00:00
PHST- 1998/08/06 00:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 1998/08/06 00:01 [medline]
PHST- 1998/08/06 00:00 [entrez]
AID - S0954-6111(98)90299-2 [pii]
AID - 10.1016/s0954-6111(98)90299-2 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - Respir Med. 1998 Mar;92(3):505-11. doi: 10.1016/s0954-6111(98)90299-2.