ERS/ATS technical standard on interpretive strategies for routine lung function tests

Sanja Stanojevic(Dalhousie University), David A. Kaminsky(University of Vermont), Martin R. Miller(University of Birmingham), Bruce Thompson(The Alfred Hospital), Andréa Aliverti(Politecnico di Milano), Igor Barjaktarević(University of California, Los Angeles), Brendan Cooper(University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust), Bruce H. Culver(University of Washington), Eric Derom(Ghent University Hospital), Graham L. Hall(The Kids Research Institute Australia), Teal S. Hallstrand(University of Washington), Jörg D. Leuppi(University of Basel), Neil R. MacIntyre(Duke Medical Center), Meredith C. McCormack(Johns Hopkins University), Margaret Rosenfeld(Seattle Children's Hospital), Erik R. Swenson(University of Washington)
European Respiratory Journal
December 23, 2021
Cited by 1,446Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Appropriate interpretation of pulmonary function tests (PFTs) involves the classification of observed values as within/outside the normal range based on a reference population of healthy individuals, integrating knowledge of physiological determinants of test results into functional classifications and integrating patterns with other clinical data to estimate prognosis. In 2005, the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and European Respiratory Society (ERS) jointly adopted technical standards for the interpretation of PFTs. We aimed to update the 2005 recommendations and incorporate evidence from recent literature to establish new standards for PFT interpretation. METHODS: This technical standards document was developed by an international joint Task Force, appointed by the ERS/ATS with multidisciplinary expertise in conducting and interpreting PFTs and developing international standards. A comprehensive literature review was conducted and published evidence was reviewed. RESULTS: Recommendations for the choice of reference equations and limits of normal of the healthy population to identify individuals with unusually low or high results are discussed. Interpretation strategies for bronchodilator responsiveness testing, limits of natural changes over time and severity are also updated. Interpretation of measurements made by spirometry, lung volumes and gas transfer are described as they relate to underlying pathophysiology with updated classification protocols of common impairments. CONCLUSIONS: Interpretation of PFTs must be complemented with clinical expertise and consideration of the inherent biological variability of the test and the uncertainty of the test result to ensure appropriate interpretation of an individual's lung function measurements.


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis