Spirometry values in a Greek population: is there an appropriate reference equation?
ABSTRACT Most published reference values for lung function test (LFT) parameters introduce systematic bias. The aim of this study was to compare measured values of FEV(1) and FVC with the corresponding normal predicted values in a Greek population, and to produce reference equations for LFT parameters in this population.
In a cross-sectional study conducted in Macedonia, Greece, 1080 adult healthy, non-smokers (432 men, 648 women, aged 18-80 years), underwent spirometry. Measured values of FVC and FEV(1) were compared with predicted values determined using three existing sets of reference equations: one recently derived from a European population and two others widely used in Europe (European Coal and Steel Community; ECSC) and the USA (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey; NHANES III). Height and age were entered into the multivariate regression analysis to produce reference equations for LFT parameters.
All three published sets of equations underpredicted FEV(1) in men. FVC was accurately predicted by all equations except NHANES III. The discrepancy was even greater among women; the ECSC equation underpredicted both FEV(1) and FVC, the NHANES III equation overpredicted both FEV(1) and FVC, while the third set of equations accurately predicted FEV(1) but overpredicted FVC. The derived reference equation for FEV(1) in men was -0.28 × age + 0.057 × height - 4.91, and in women -0.021 × age + 0.039 × height - 2.58. The derived reference equation for FVC in men was -0.28 × age + 0.071 × height - 6.763, and in women -0.019 × age + 0.056 × height - 5.018.
Measured FEV(1) and FVC values in a Greek population differed significantly from those predicted using previously published reference equations. The new locally derived spirometry reference equations may be more suitable for evaluation of lung function in everyday practice.
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Racial differences in ventilatory lung function were evaluated in a community study of 393 children (158 blacks, 235 whites). Mean forced vital capacity was 18 per cent larger in nonsmoking white males than in nonsmoking black males, and 11 per cent larger in nonsmoking white females than in nonsmoking black females. Similar differences were observed for the 1-sec forced expiratory volume and for the maximal expiratory flow at 50 per cent of the vital capacity. However, when adjusted for lung size (on the basis of forced vital capacity), 1-sec forced expiratory volume and maximal expiratory flow at 50 per cent of the forced vital capacity were larger in the black children compared to the white children. Lung function prediction equations based on race, sex, age, height and weight are presented for healthy nonsmoking children; these allow for an evaluation of normal lung function in both black and white children.The American review of respiratory disease 12/1976; 114(5):955-9. · 10.19 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We recorded maximum expiratory flow-volume curves in 3046 healthy persons, blacks and whites, age 7 and over--a representative population of lifetime nonsmokers except for some black adult males, who were healthy smokers or ex-smokers. We computed regression equations for lung function measurements (FVC, FEV1.0, FEV10/FVC, PEF, MEF 50% and MEF 25%) as a function of age, height and weight terms for eight subgroups (by sex and race, and for children or adults). Objective statistical criteria were used to select the optimal equations. Simple linear regressions on age and height are inaccurate, in particular for young adults and for the elderly. Weight affects most function measurements: lung function first increases with weight ('muscularity effect') and decreases with further increases in weight ('obesity effect'). The regression equations allow more accurate prediction of normal lung function. In addition, the lower 95% confidence limits are closer to the predicted values and are valid regardless of height, weight and age within each subgroup.Respiration Physiology 07/1978; 33(3):367-93.
- International Journal of Epidemiology 04/1974; 3(1):55-61. · 6.98 Impact Factor