A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Comparison of a handheld turbine spirometer to conventional spirometry in children with cystic fibrosis. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: In pediatric cystic fibrosis (CF) ambulatory care, handheld spirometry in individual clinic rooms would improve patient flow and potentially reduce patient-to-patient contact. A validation study was conducted to examine the accuracy of an entirely handheld turbine spirometer vs a standard laboratory device in pediatric CF patients.

Methods: Spirometric data were obtained from 76 CF patients aged less than 18 years in the ambulatory setting using the Micro Loop Spirometer (CareFusion) and compared to same-day data from conventional laboratory spirometry.

Results: Linear relationships were obtained between devices, demonstrating good correlation: r = .99, .99, .97, and .82 for forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV , forced vital capacity (FVC), FEF , and peak expiratory flow, respectively (P < .001 for all). Biases (mean differences between devices) were -65 mL for FEV (P < .001) and -115 mL for FVC (P < .001) on the handheld. Bland-Altman plots demonstrated scatter in bias across all volumes. Limits of agreement (defined as mean ± 2 standard deviations [SD]) were large: +189 to -319 mL for FEV , equating to large limits of agreement for FEV percent predicted of +9.0% to -13.9%. For repeated measurements on the same device on different days, a larger percent SD was obtained with the handheld compared to the conventional spirometer (6.7% vs 5.1%, respectively). Importantly, a relatively large number (15%) demonstrated a decrease in FEV percent predicted of ≥10% on the handheld compared to conventional.

Conclusions: This suggests that while both devices have passed the recommendations for spirometry testing per American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society, handheld turbine vs conventional spirometers may not be used interchangeably in the pediatric CF population.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ppul.24743DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

handheld turbine
8
turbine spirometer
8
cystic fibrosis
8
comparison handheld
4
spirometer conventional
4
conventional spirometry
4
spirometry children
4
children cystic
4
fibrosis background
4
background pediatric
4

Similar Publications