Talk:Spirometry

message: could we have some normal ranges please?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.219.14 (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Normal ranges

message: Anyone able to writ about other pulmonary function tests?  I was interested in more information about DLCO, and the differential diagnosis of abnormal values in the DLCO. Ksheka 22:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other pulmonary function tests

message: I've added photos of Peak Flow Meters to the Peak Flow Meter article.  If it is relevant to this page, then please can someone add them here too?  Thanks  --Tomhannen 21:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo?

message: Hello,
Great info in the article.... Is there a way for a person to increase FVC and FEV1 through some type of "lung exercises"? (January 2008)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.101.149 (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Can lung function scores be increased by exercises?

message: Hi,
I have some confusion.
From the table FEV "is the speed of the air moving out of your lungs at the beginning of the expiration, measured in liters per second."
Shouldn't it be "is the PEAK speed of the air moving out of your lungs at the beginning of the expiration, measured in liters per second."?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haimmelman (talk • contribs) 15:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I do believe that it is correct as is. The term you are looking for is peak expiratory flow (PEF). Tyrol5  [Talk] 14:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spirometry Test Values and Flow-Volume Loop diagram 

message: Should not be in Spirometry page because they are not measurable by any  spirometry test (FVC, SVC, MVV,..) 
They are measured by other PFT tests but not by spirometry.
--Toce (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  DLCO and TLC 

message: I think this image needs attention to two issues before reinsertion:
*Can it be confirmed that is is not under copyright?
*It needs to be larger, because the numbers are currently not clearly seen. It tricks readers into believing that there actually is a larger image by clicking on it, but there isn't.
Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spirometer printout image 

message: Hi guys,
There is a flaw in the first image explaining the flow-volume loop: it appears as if FEV1 (the yellow zone) is atteined in the first 10% of the FV loop. Clearly this is not the case (if it were, the FEV1/FVC ratio would be only 10%...). The yellow zone should comprise around 80% of the expiratory FVC loop.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.101.95.37 (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in image 

message: "FEF 25–75% or 25–50% gives an indication of what is happening in the lower airways. It is a more sensitive parameter and not as reproducible as the others. It is a useful serial measurement because it will be affected before FEV, so can act as an early warning sign of small airway disease. In small airway diseases such as asthma this value will be reduced, it could be less than 65% of the expected value."  
I'm having a little trouble sourcing the details of this.  I've found a "year-in-review" sort of article (doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2010.11.018), the primary investigation that the review article cites (doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2010.05.016), and another correspondence tying it to allergic rhinitis (doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2010.10.053).  However, ACP Medicine (March 2010) states: "Although the earliest evidence of obstruction can be found in a reduction in the instantaneous flows in the middle VC (FEF25-75) or late VC (FEF75), these are nonspecific findings of uncertain clinical significance. The wide variability of FEF25-75 measurements in normal individuals has made this an unreliable indicator of disease, and current recommendations are to not use this measurement to determine disease status."
The articles in support of using FEF25-75 are more recent (September 2010 and February 2011), so it's possible that this may be new, good information.  However, until such time as that's been established, I think the language in the article here should be a little more tempered.
I'm going to change it to read: "Recent research suggests that FEF25-75% or FEF25-50% may be a more sensitive parameter than FEV1 in the detection of obstructive small airway disease.  However, in the absence of concomitant changes in the standard markers, discrepancies in mid-range expiratory flow may not be specific enough to be useful, and current practice guidelines recommend continuing to use FEV1, VC, FEV1/VC and FVC as indicators of obstructive disease." Blahdenoma (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance of FEF25-75