Abstract
Objective. To investigate the reliability of Spirometric tests performed in general practice.
Design. Comparison of two diagnostic tests.
Method. A repeated within-subject comparison of Spirometric tests was performed on 388 subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) from 61 general practices and 4 laboratories. The standard was a test performed in a pulmonary function laboratory. General practitioners and practice assistants undertook a spirometry training programme at the start of the study. Within-subject differences in forced expiratory volume in I second and forced vital capacity (ΔFEV1 and ΔFVC) between laboratory and general practice tests were measured as primary outcomes (practice minus laboratory value). The tests were repeated after one year. The proportion of tests with an FEV 1 difference < 5% and < 200 ml served as a quality marker.
Results. Mean ΔFEV1 was 0.069 1 (95% CI: 0.054-0.084) and ΔFVC 0.081 1 (95% CI: 0.053-0.109) in the first-year evaluation, indicating consistently higher values for general practice measurements. Second-year results were similar. Laboratory and general practice FEV 1 values differed by up to 0.5 1, FVC values by up to 1.0 1. The proportion of non-reproducible tests was 16% for laboratory tests and 18% for general practice tests (p = 0.302) in the first-year evaluation, and 18% for both in the second-year evaluation (p = 1.000).
Conclusion. Relevant Spirometric indices measured by trained general-practice staff were marginally (but statistically significantly) higher than those measured in pulmonary-function laboratories. Because of the limited agreement between laboratory and general-practice values, the interchangeable use of measurements from these two different locations is best avoided. As long as the practice staff receives sufficient training, the current practice of performing Spirometric tests in the primary-care setting seems to be justifiable on the basis of this study.
Translated title of the contribution | Spirometric tests on patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease just as reliable in the general-practice setting as in a pulmonary-function laboratory, but not interchangeable |
---|---|
Original language | Dutch |
Pages (from-to) | 2280-2285 |
Number of pages | 6 |
Journal | Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde |
Volume | 148 |
Issue number | 46 |
Publication status | Published - Nov 2004 |
Externally published | Yes |