4.5 Article

Reference values for paediatric pulmonary function testing: The Utrecht dataset

期刊

RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
卷 105, 期 1, 页码 15-23

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2010.07.020

关键词

Bodyplethysmography; Diffusion capacity; Interrupter resistance; Reference data; Spirometry

资金

  1. Catharijne Stichting UMC Utrecht
  2. Sophie Bueninck Stichting, the Netherlands

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Since populations evolve, measurement protocols and equipment improve and analysis techniques progress, there is an ongoing need to reassess reference data for pulmonary function tests. Furthermore, reference values for total lung capacity and carbon monoxide diffusion capacity are scarcely available in children. We aimed to provide updated reference equations for most commonly used pulmonary function indices in Caucasian children. Methods: In the 'Utrecht Pulmonary Function Reference Data Study' we collected data in Caucasian children aged 2-18 years. We analyzed them using the 'Generalized Additive Models for Location Scale and Shape' (GAMLSS) statistical method. Results: Measurements of interrupter resistance (R-int) (n = 877), spirometry (n = 1042), body plethysmography (n = 723) and carbon monoxide diffusion/helium dilution (n = 543) were obtained in healthy children. Height (or the natural logarithm of height) and age (or the natural logarithm of age) were both significantly related to most outcome measures. Also sex was a significant determinant, except for RV, RV/TLC, FRCpleth, Raw(0.5), Raw(tot), R-int and FEF values. The application of previously published reference equations on the study population resulted in misinterpretation of pulmonary function. Conclusion: These new paediatric reference equations provide accurate estimates of the range of normality for most commonly used pulmonary function indices, resulting in less underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis of pulmonary diseases. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据