Extract
We read with great interest the new interpretive strategies for routine pulmonary function testing recently published in the European Respiratory Journal [1]. We appreciate the change in framing the assessment of pulmonary function over time from the amount of function lost to the amount that remains. Unfortunately, the discussion of this metric did not address some important aspects that clinicians use to monitor patients and make clinical decisions. The strategy for addressing natural changes in lung function over time utilises the FEV1Q (i.e. the forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) divided by the sex-specific first percentile values of the absolute FEV1 values found in adults with lung disease, that is 0.4 L for women and 0.5 L for men) to predict survival, but does not mention other indices of pulmonary function that are commonly used to track changes over time.
Abstract
The new interpretive strategies for pulmonary function tests do not give guidance on meaningful changes over time for important indices covered in the prior document https://bit.ly/3rbKMLl
Footnotes
Conflict of interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
- Received August 22, 2022.
- Accepted September 16, 2022.
- Copyright ©The authors 2023. For reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions{at}ersnet.org