Spirometry in healthy subjects: do technical details of the test procedure affect the results?

• Published in: PloS one Vol. 9; no. 9; p. e107782
• Main Authors: Sipoli, Luciana, Martinez, Larissa, Donária, Leila, Probst, Vanessa Suziane, Moreira, Graciane Laender, Pitta, Fabio
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Public Library of Science 22.09.2014; Public Library of Science (PLoS)
• Subjects: Adult; Adults; Age groups; Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; Clinical medicine; Comparative analysis; Criteria; Disease; Female; Humans; Laboratories; Limbs; Lungs; Male; Maneuvers; Medicine and Health Sciences; Middle Aged; Posture; Reference Values; Reproducibility; Research and Analysis Methods; Respiratory function; Sitting position; Spirometry - methods; Statistical analysis; Studies; Thorax; Values; Ventilation; Brazil
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107782

Spirometry should follow strict quality criteria. The American Thoracic Society (ATS) recommends the use of a noseclip; however there are controversies about its need. ATS also indicates that tests should be done in the sitting position, but there are no recommendations neither about position of the upper limbs and lower limbs nor about who should hold the mouthpiece while performing the maneuvers: evaluated subject or evaluator. To compare noseclip use or not, different upper and lower limbs positions and who holds the mouthpiece, verifying if these technical details affect spirometric results in healthy adults. One hundred and three healthy individuals (41 men; age: 47 [33-58] years; normal lung function: FEV₁/FVC = 83±5, FEV₁ = 94 [88-104]%predicted, FVC = 92 [84-102]%predicted) underwent a protocol consisting of four spirometric comparative analysis in the sitting position: 1) maximum voluntary ventilation (MVV) with vs without noseclip; 2) FVC performed with vs without upper limbs support; 3) FVC performed with lower limbs crossed vs lower limbs in neutral position; 4) FVC, slow vital capacity and MVV comparing the evaluated subject holding the mouthpiece vs evaluator holding it. Different spirometric variables presented statistically significant difference (p<0.05) when analysing the four comparisons; however, none of them showed any variation larger than those considered as acceptable according to the ATS reproducibility criteria. There was no relevant variation in spirometric results when analyzing technical details such as noseclip use during MVV, upper and lower limb positions and who holds the mouthpiece when performing the tests in healthy adults.