15.01.2015 Views

Lung function measurements in children - copsac

Lung function measurements in children - copsac

Lung function measurements in children - copsac

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

After correct<strong>in</strong>g the factory sett<strong>in</strong>gs at the deviat<strong>in</strong>g center there were no longer<br />

differences between the centers and normative values were generated <strong>in</strong> this multicenter<br />

sett<strong>in</strong>g. The problem was not discovered by the standard calibration of flow, box<br />

leak and <strong>in</strong>ternal box pressure. Current calibration only assesses flow measured by the<br />

pneumotachograph, leak from the box and pressure transducer. Previous studies have<br />

shown that the electronic BTPS compensation may <strong>in</strong>fluence the accuracy of sRaw<br />

<strong>measurements</strong> (15, 55). Klug et al. found when us<strong>in</strong>g electronic BTPS compensation the<br />

sRaw <strong>measurements</strong> were systematically overestimated by 43% with <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g<br />

respiratory rate compared with true BTPS conditions (15). The electronic compensation<br />

(BTPS) was done identically by the different software versions. The available<br />

calibration does not assess the f<strong>in</strong>al resistance measure, which is generated by<br />

algorithms buried <strong>in</strong> the software with sett<strong>in</strong>gs often <strong>in</strong>accessible to the end-user.<br />

Thereby errors <strong>in</strong> software or mechanics may go unnoticed with potential impact on<br />

cl<strong>in</strong>ical evaluation and flawed accuracy as illustrated <strong>in</strong> our study. It is the key-message<br />

of our study that center-effects were seen and could only be expla<strong>in</strong>ed by difference <strong>in</strong><br />

the software hidden from the end-user.<br />

We chose not to repeat the study with the same procedure after the correction; first of all<br />

because the travell<strong>in</strong>g was time consum<strong>in</strong>g and second the observers and <strong>children</strong><br />

would be biased by the prior knowledge.<br />

We could have used adults as biological controls, but they could be biased even if we<br />

bl<strong>in</strong>ded the results from each center and we would have to change the observers.<br />

The local observers had different experience level <strong>in</strong> sRaw <strong>measurements</strong>. Two local<br />

observers had only measured approximately 5-10 <strong>children</strong> before perform<strong>in</strong>g the study<br />

and some had 5-10 years of experience.<br />

The <strong>children</strong> had good repeatability and were cooperative. The mean sRaw for the<br />

biological controls was with<strong>in</strong> but a little lower than the normative data (Figure 4+5) if<br />

we do not consider center no. 1. We consider the <strong>children</strong> physiologically representative<br />

for preschool <strong>children</strong> and the lower mean sRaw could be due to the low number of<br />

<strong>children</strong>.<br />

A mechanical <strong>in</strong>fant lung model analogue has previously been developed for quality<br />

control of <strong>in</strong>fant whole-body plethysmographs (52) but a model test<strong>in</strong>g for preschool<br />

<strong>children</strong> is not available to the end-user. This study suggests the need for development<br />

22

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!