Goodness-of-Fits of the Spirometric Reference Values for Koreans and USA Caucasians to Spirometry Data from Residents of a Region within Chungbuk Province.
10.4046/trd.2012.72.3.302
- Author:
Sang Yong EOM
1
;
Sun In MOON
;
Dong Hyuk YIM
;
Chul Ho LEE
;
Guen Bae KIM
;
Yong Dae KIM
;
Jong Won KANG
;
Kang Hyeon CHOE
;
Sung Jin KIM
;
Byung Sun CHOI
;
Seung Do YU
;
Soung Hoon CHANG
;
Jung Duck PARK
;
Heon KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Preventive Medicine and Medical Research Institute, Chungbuk National University College of Medicine, Cheongju, Korea. kimheon@chungbuk.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Spirometry;
Reference Values;
Vital Capacity;
Forced Expiratory Volume
- MeSH:
Adult;
Female;
Forced Expiratory Volume;
Humans;
Lung;
Male;
Prevalence;
Reference Values;
Spirometry;
Vital Capacity
- From:Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases
2012;72(3):302-309
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Korean regression models for spirometric reference values are different from those of Americans. Using spirometry results of Korean adults, goodness-of-fits of the Korean and the USA Caucasian regression models for forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) were compared. METHODS: The number of study participants was 2,360 (1,124 males and 1,236 females). Spirometry was performed under the guidelines of the American Thoracic Society and the European Respiratory Society. After excluding unsuitable participants, spirometric data for 729 individuals (105 males and 624 females) was included in the statistical analysis. The estimated FVC and FEV1 values were compared with those measured. Goodness-of-fits for Korean and USA Caucasian models were compared using an F-test. RESULTS: In males, the expected values of FVC and FEV1 using the Korean model were 12.5% and 5.7% greater than those measured, respectively. The corresponding values for the USA Caucasian model were 3.5% and 0.6%. In females, the difference in FVC and FEV1 were 13.5% and 7.7% for the Korean model, and 6.3% and 0.4% for the USA model, respectively. Goodness-of-fit for the Korean model regarding FVC was not good to the study population, but the Korean regression model for FEV1, and the USA Caucasian models for FVC and FEV1 showed good fits to the measured data. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the USA Caucasian model correlates better to the measured data than the Korean model. Using reference values derived from the Korean model can lead to an overestimation regarding the prevalence of abnormal lung function.
