Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • For authors
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Author FAQs
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • For authors
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Author FAQs
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions

Eleven peak flow meters: a clinical evaluation

H Folgering, W vd Brink, O v Heeswijk, C v Herwaarden
European Respiratory Journal 1998 11: 188-193; DOI:
H Folgering
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
W vd Brink
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
O v Heeswijk
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
C v Herwaarden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Peak flow meters are essential tools in the management of asthma. Many types are on the market. A computer-driven piston pump is normally not available for evaluation of the various meters. Comparison with values from a pneumotachograph is an accepted way of testing peak flow meters. This study aims at comparing 11 peak flow meters, for accuracy and linearity. Seven adult peak flow meters were tested: Miniwright with an equidistant scale (Clement Clarke); Personal Best (Healthscan); Wright Pocket fdE (Ferraris); Vitalograph (Vitalograph); Assess (Healthscan); Pocket Peak flow meter (Micro Medical); and Truzone (Monaghan). Furthermore, four low-range (LR) peak flow meters were tested: LR Miniwright with equidistant scale (Clement Clarke); LR Personal Best (Healthscan); LR Wright Pocket (LR Ferraris); and LR Pocket peak flow meter (LR Micro Medical). Two test series were performed: in the first one, a peak flow meter was connected downstream in series with a Fleisch #4 pneumotachograph. One subject performed 50 partial forced expiratory manoeuvres through this ensemble. In the second series, 50 adult patients and 25 healthy children performed sequential maximal forced expiratory manoeuvres on each peak flow meter, and on the pneumotachograph. A ranking system was devised for the various parameters of agreement of the meters with the pneumotachograph. Substantial differences in the quality of the adult meters were found. The adult peak flow meters with the closest agreement to the pneumotachograph were Personal Best and Micro Medical. In the low-range peak flow meters, the lowest differences were seen in the LR Personal Best and LR Micro Medical.

PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 11 Issue 1 Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Eleven peak flow meters: a clinical evaluation
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Eleven peak flow meters: a clinical evaluation
H Folgering, W vd Brink, O v Heeswijk, C v Herwaarden
European Respiratory Journal Jan 1998, 11 (1) 188-193;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Eleven peak flow meters: a clinical evaluation
H Folgering, W vd Brink, O v Heeswijk, C v Herwaarden
European Respiratory Journal Jan 1998, 11 (1) 188-193;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • Allergen inhalation associated with airway dysfunction
  • OSTEOPOROSIS AND FACTURE RISK ASSOCIATED WITH ICS USE IN COPD
  • Cost-effectiveness of azithromycin in reducing asthma exacerbations
Show more Original Articles

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Reviewers
  • CME
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Submit a manuscript
  • ERS author centre

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • Podcasts
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN:  0903-1936
Online ISSN: 1399-3003

Copyright © 2021 by the European Respiratory Society