help button home button
AJRCCM
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by LEROYER, C.
Right arrow Articles by MALO, J.-L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by LEROYER, C.
Right arrow Articles by MALO, J.-L.

Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., Volume 158, Number 3, September 1998, 827-832

Comparison of Serial Monitoring of Peak Expiratory Flow and FEV1 in the Diagnosis of Occupational Asthma

CHRISTOPHE LEROYER, LUCA PERFETTI, CAROLE TRUDEAU, JOCELYNE L'ARCHEVÊQUE, MOIRA CHAN-YEUNG, and JEAN-LUC MALO

Department of Chest Medicine, Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur, Montreal, Quebec; and Department of Medicine, Respiratory Division, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Peak expiratory flow (PEF) monitoring is often used to establish the relationship between occupational exposure and asthma. FEV1 has been found to be a better physiologic index than PEF in the measurement of airflow obstruction. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of serial monitoring of PEF and FEV1 in the diagnosis of occupational asthma. Twenty consecutive subjects referred for possible occupational asthma were asked to perform serial monitoring of PEF and FEV1 using a portable ventilometer. Two sets of graphs were plotted for both PEF and FEV1: graphs with the best of all values and graphs with the best of two reproducible values. Three observers interpreted both PEF and FEV1 recordings by the visual method in a blind, randomized manner as either compatible with occupational asthma or not. Eleven of the subjects had a positive inhalation challenge test (high-molecular-weight agents, n = 6; low-molecular-weight agents, n = 5). In the case of analysis of the graphs plotted with the best of all values, the sensitivity of the PEF recording interpreted by the three observers was 82, 73, and 73%, and of the FEV1 recording as 55, 55, and 45%; specificity of PEF recording was 89, 100, and 100%, and of FEV1 was 56, 89, and 100%. When an agreement between two of the three readers was required to define occupational asthma, sensitivity and specificity were 73 and 100% for PEF and 55 and 89% for FEV1. Lower sensitivities were found when the same analyses were performed with the graphs plotted with the best of two reproducible values. It was concluded that unsupervised FEV1 is not more accurate than unsupervised PEF monitoring in the diagnosis of occupational asthma. Plotting graphs using the best value gives better diagnostic accuracy than plotting them with the best of two reproducible values.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ThoraxHome page
D Fishwick, C M Barber, L M Bradshaw, J Harris-Roberts, M Francis, S Naylor, J Ayres, P S Burge, J M Corne, P Cullinan, et al.
Standards of care for occupational asthma
Thorax, March 1, 2008; 63(3): 240 - 250.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Occup. Environ. Med.Home page
A. R Bolen, P. K Henneberger, X. Liang, S. R Sama, P. A Preusse, R. A Rosiello, and D. K Milton
The validation of work-related self-reported asthma exacerbation
Occup. Environ. Med., May 1, 2007; 64(5): 343 - 348.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Occup. Environ. Med.Home page
D. Fishwick, L. Bradshaw, M. Henson, C. Stenton, D. Hendrick, S. Burge, R. Niven, C. Warburton, T. Rogers, R. Rawbone, et al.
Occupational asthma: an assessment of diagnostic agreement between physicians
Occup. Environ. Med., March 1, 2007; 64(3): 185 - 190.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
C. E. Mapp, P. Boschetto, P. Maestrelli, and L. M. Fabbri
Occupational Asthma
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., August 1, 2005; 172(3): 280 - 305.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Occup. Environ. Med.Home page
P J Nicholson, P Cullinan, A J Newman Taylor, P S Burge, and C Boyle
Evidence based guidelines for the prevention, identification, and management of occupational asthma
Occup. Environ. Med., May 1, 2005; 62(5): 290 - 299.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur Respir JHome page
W. Anees, P.F. Gannon, V. Huggins, C.F.A. Pantin, and P.S. Burge
Effect of peak expiratory flow data quantity on diagnostic sensitivity and specificity in occupational asthma
Eur. Respir. J., May 1, 2004; 23(5): 730 - 734.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Asthma Risk at Work, School, and Recreation
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., April 1, 2004; 169(7): 873 - 881.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ThoraxHome page
D R Baldwin, P Gannon, P Bright, D T Newton, A Robertson, K Venables, B Graneek, R D Barker, A Cartier, J-L Malo, et al.
Interpretation of occupational peak flow records: level of agreement between expert clinicians and Oasys-2
Thorax, October 1, 2002; 57(10): 860 - 864.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Proc. Am. Thorac. Soc. Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol.
Copyright © 1998 American Thoracic Society