This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
BACKGROUND: Forced expiratory volume in 3 seconds (FEV(3)) and 6 seconds (FEV(6)) could complement FEV(1) and forced vital capacity (FVC) for detecting airflow obstruction. OBJECTIVE: To compare FEV(1)/ FEV(6) and FEV(3)/FVC with FEV(1)/FVC in the detection of airflow obstruction. METHOD: Previous lung function data were re-analysed to establish reference values for FEV(3) and FEV(6). Data from a separate cohort of male smokers were used as test set. FEV(1), FEV(3), FEV(6), FVC, FEV(1)/FVC, FEV(1)/ FEV(6) and FEV(3)/FVC were regressed against age, standing height, weight and body mass index, and the mean and 95% confidence intervals for the lower limit of normal (LLN) values for these parameters were determined. RESULTS: The percentage of smokers with airflow obstruction in the test population using FEV(1)/FVC < LLN was 15.0%, while using FEV(1)/ FEV(6) < LLN and FEV(3)/FVC < LLN they were respectively 18.5% and 18.1%. Using FEV(1)/FVC < LLN as reference, the sensitivity and specificity of FEV(1)/ FEV(6) < LLN in identifying airflow obstruction were 82.3% and 92.8%, while those for FEV(3)/FVC < LLN were 78.5% and 92.6%; the positive and negative predictive values were 67% and 96.7% for FEV(1)/ FEV(6) < LLN and 65.3% and 96% for FEV(3)/FVC < LLN. CONCLUSION: FEV(3)/FVC < LLN and FEV(1)/ FEV(6) < LLN are comparable to FEV(1)/FVC < LLN for detecting airflow obstruction. FEV(3)/FVC < LLN could be useful in screening for airflow obstruction, while FEV(1)/ FEV(6) < LLN is useful in detecting airflow limitation in the elderly or in subjects with severe airflow obstruction.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lam et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: