Differences and agreement between two portable hand-held spirometers across diverse community-based populations in the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study

• Published in: PLOS Global Public Health
• Main Authors: Duong, MyLinh, Rangarajan, Sumathy, Zaman, Michele, Nasir, Nafiza Mat, Seron, Pamela, Yeates, Karen, Yusufali, Afzalhussein M, Khatib, Rasha, Tse, Lap Ah, Wang, Chuangshi, Wielgosz, Andreas, Teo, Koon, Kumar, Rajesh, Avezum, Alvaro, Ismail, Rosnah, Çalık, Burcu Tumerdem, Gopakumar, Soumya, Rahman, Omar, Zatońska, Katarzyna, Rosengren, Annika, Otero, Johanna, Kelishadi, Roya, Diaz, Rafael, Puoane, Thandi, Yusuf, Salim
• Format: Text
• Language: unknown
• Published: Advocate Aurora Health Institutional Repository 2022
• Subjects: spirometer; ventilation; epidemiology; population health; Advocate Aurora Research Institute; Population Health and Public Health; Aurora Research Institute
• Online Access: https://institutionalrepository.aah.org/allother/482; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000141; https://libkey.io/libraries/1712/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000141

Introduction: Portable spirometers are commonly used in longitudinal epidemiological studies to measure and track the forced expiratory volume in first second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC). During the course of the study, it may be necessary to replace spirometers with a different model. This raise questions regarding the comparability of measurements from different devices. We examined the correlation, mean differences and agreement between two different spirometers, across diverse populations and different participant characteristics. Methods: From June 2015 to Jan 2018, a total of 4,603 adults were enrolled from 628 communities in 18 countries and 7 regions of the world. Each participant performed concurrent measurements from the MicroGP and EasyOne spirometer. Measurements were compared by the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman method. Results: Approximately 65% of the participants achieved clinically acceptable quality measurements. Overall correlations between paired FEV1 (ICC 0.88 [95% CI 0.87, 0.88]) and FVC (ICC 0.84 [0.83, 0.85]) were high. Mean differences between paired FEV1 (-0.038 L [-0.053, -0.023]) and FVC (0.033 L [0.012, 0.054]) were small. The 95% limits of agreement were wide but unbiased (FEV1 984, -1060; FVC 1460, -1394). Similar findings were observed across regions. The source of variation between spirometers was mainly at the participant level. Older age, higher body mass index, tobacco smoking and known COPD/asthma did not adversely impact on the inter-device variability. Furthermore, there were small and acceptable mean differences between paired FEV1 and FVC z-scores using the Global Lung Initiative normative values, suggesting minimal impact on lung function interpretation. Conclusions: In this multicenter, diverse community-based cohort study, measurements from two portable spirometers provided good correlation, small and unbiased differences between measurements. These data support their interchangeable use across diverse populations to provide ...