Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2004 Aug;83(8):608-12.
doi: 10.1097/01.phm.0000133431.70907.a2.

Comparison of peak cough flows measured by pneumotachograph and a portable peak flow meter

Jesús Sancho  1 , Emilio Servera, Juan Díaz, Julio Marín
Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Comparison of peak cough flows measured by pneumotachograph and a portable peak flow meter

Jesús Sancho et al. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2004 Aug.

Abstract

Objective: To compare peak cough flows (PCF) obtained with a pneumotachograph (PCFp) with those measured using a portable peak flow meter (PCFm) in a population of healthy subjects and patients with neuromuscular disease.

Design: A total of 30 healthy subjects and 32 medically stable patients with neuromuscular diseases were studied. Using an oronasal mask connected, in a randomized order, to a pneumotachograph and to a portable peak flow meter, PCFp and PCFm were measured as every subject performed maximal cough efforts from total lung capacity.

Results: PCFp measurements were 377.70 +/-179.28 liters/min and PCFm measurements were 377.50 +/- 172.98 liters/min (not significant). The two measurements were correlated (r = 0.95, P < 0.001). The random error obtained was 9.37%. The mean of the differences between the values obtained using both instruments +/- limits of agreement (+2 SD) was 0.20 +/- 109.78 liters/min (not significant). When the agreement was tested over three ranges of flows (< 270 liters/min, 270-480 liters/min, and >480 liters/min), no statistically significant differences were obtained for the population as a whole in any range; however, in the lower flow range, 14 patients had PCFm significantly greater than PCFp (213.93 +/- 55.92 vs. 180.86 +/- 57.22, P = <0.01).

Conclusion: PCF measurements made with a portable peak flow meter such as the asmaPLAN+ (Vitalograph, Ennis, Ireland) are reproducible and reasonably accurate when flows are >270 liters/min. However, some caution must be exercised in clinical practice at lower PCF because of the tendency of this portable device to overestimate the lower flows.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

LinkOut - more resources