Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • 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
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

A comparison of three measures of the response to inhaled methacholine

AJ Knox, HE Coleman, Britton JR, AE Tattersfield
European Respiratory Journal 1989 2: 736-740; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.93.02080736
AJ Knox
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
HE Coleman
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Britton JR
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
AE Tattersfield
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

In studies of asthma prevalence bronchial responsiveness has usually been measured as the provocative dose of bronchoconstrictor causing a 20% fall in FEV1 (PD20FEV1). This is relatively insensitive and only 10-20% of subjects in a general population sample will show such a response. Attempts to increase sensitivity, such as the use of the provocative dose causing a 10% fall in FEV1 (PD10FEV1), have not demonstrated any overall advantage, due to poorer repeatability. It has been suggested that measurement of bronchial reactivity using flow at low lung volumes measured from a partial flow volume curve is a more sensitive index of bronchoconstriction than PD20FEV1. If equally repeatable, it would have advantages in epidemiological practice. In 20 subjects with asthma, we compared the sensitivity and repeatability of PD10FEV1, PD20FEV1, and the provocative dose causing a 40% fall in flow at 30% of vital capacity (PD40V30P) following methacholine challenge. PD40V30P was more sensitive than both PD20FEV1 and PD10FEV1 by 1.48 and 0.35 doubling doses (DD) of methacholine, respectively. PD20FEV1 and PD40V30P showed equal repeatability, the 95% range for a single estimate of both being 2.02 DD. PD10FEV1 was less repeatable, with a 95% range of 2.35 DD. Values for the intraclass correlation co-efficient, which measures the ability of a test to discriminate between subjects, were 0.63, 0.79 and 0.69 for PD10FEV1, PD20FEV1, and PD40V30P, respectively. The increased sensitivity and comparable repeatability of measurement of bronchial reactivity for PD40V30P suggest that this method may be useful for studies of asthma prevalence.

PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 2 Issue 8 Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents
  • 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.
A comparison of three measures of the response to inhaled methacholine
(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.
Citation Tools
A comparison of three measures of the response to inhaled methacholine
AJ Knox, HE Coleman, Britton, AE Tattersfield
European Respiratory Journal Sep 1989, 2 (8) 736-740; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.93.02080736

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
A comparison of three measures of the response to inhaled methacholine
AJ Knox, HE Coleman, Britton, AE Tattersfield
European Respiratory Journal Sep 1989, 2 (8) 736-740; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.93.02080736
Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

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

More in this TOC Section

  • Ambulatory management of secondary spontaneous pneumothorax
  • Systematic assessment of respiratory health in illness susceptible athletes
  • Identifying early PAH biomarkers in systemic sclerosis
Show more Original Articles

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • 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
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

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 © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society