English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Alternative methods have been proposed to report spirometry indices from test sessions (forced expiratory volume 1 s, FEV 1 ; forced vital capacity, FVC). However, most use the American and European Societies’ standard (ATS/ERS) which stops sessions once a repeatability threshold is met which may not accurately represent intra-session variability. Our goal was to repeat trials beyond the repeatability threshold and evaluate alternative reporting methods. 130 adults performed spirometry across two visits. Spirometry indices were reported using the ATS/ERS standard and four alternatives. 78 participants (60%) had valid data for all methods and visits. Intra-session coefficients of variation were low (FEV 1 : 3.1–3.7%; FVC: 2.3–2.8%). Our four alternative methods yielded FEV 1  and FVC values ≤ 0.08 L different from ATS/ERS standard, which is not clinically meaningful. Intraclass correlation coefficients were ≥ 0.97 indicating consistency across repeated measures. The smallest real differences ranged from FEV 1 : 0.20–0.27 L and FVC: 0.18–0.24 L indicating consistency and low measurement error. Overall, all methods for reporting FEV 1  and FVC demonstrated similar measurement error, precision, and stability within- and between-visits. These results suggest that once ATS/ERS repeatability is achieved, which approach is used for reporting spirometric variables may be of low clinical significance in a healthy population.

A comparison of alternative selection methods for reporting spirometric parameters in healthy adults