Comparison of five portable peak flow meters

Authors

  • Glaucia Nency Takara Federal University of São Carlos; Physical Therapy Department
  • Gualberto Ruas Federal University of São Carlos; Physical Therapy Department
  • Bruna Varanda Pessoa Federal University of São Carlos; Physical Therapy Department
  • Luciana Kawakami Jamami Centro Universitário Central Paulista
  • Valéria Amorim Pires Di Lorenzo Federal University of São Carlos; Physical Therapy Department
  • Mauricio Jamami Federal University of São Carlos; Physical Therapy Department

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1590/S1807-59322010000500003

Keywords:

Peak expiratory flow rate, Asthma, Monitoring, Airway obstruction, Meters

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the measurements of spirometric peak expiratory flow (PEF) from five different PEF meters and to determine if their values are in agreement. Inaccurate equipment may result in incorrect diagnoses of asthma and inappropriate treatments. METHODS: Sixty-eight healthy, sedentary and insufficiently active subjects, aged from 19 to 40 years, performed PEF measurements using Air Zone®, Assess®, Galemed®, Personal Best® and Vitalograph® peak flow meters. The highest value recorded for each subject for each device was compared to the corresponding spirometric values using Friedman's test with Dunn's post-hoc (p<0.05), Spearman's correlation test and Bland-Altman's agreement test. RESULTS: The median and interquartile ranges for the spirometric values and the Air Zone®, Assess®, Galemed®, Personal Best® and Vitalograph® meters were 428 (263-688 L/min), 450 (350-800 L/min), 420 (310-720 L/min), 380 (300-735 L/min), 400 (310-685 L/min) and 415 (335-610 L/min), respectively. Significant differences were found when the spirometric values were compared to those recorded by the Air Zone® (p<0.001) and Galemed ® (p<0.01) meters. There was no agreement between the spirometric values and the five PEF meters. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the values recorded from Galemed® meters may underestimate the actual value, which could lead to unnecessary interventions, and that Air Zone® meters overestimate spirometric values, which could obfuscate the need for intervention. These findings must be taken into account when interpreting both devices' results in younger people. These differences should also be considered when directly comparing values from different types of PEF meters.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2010-01-01

Issue

Section

Clinical Sciences

How to Cite

Takara, G. N., Ruas, G., Pessoa, B. V., Jamami, L. K., Lorenzo, V. A. P. D., & Jamami, M. (2010). Comparison of five portable peak flow meters . Clinics, 65(5), 469-474. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1807-59322010000500003