Cut-off value of FEV1/FEV6 to determine airflow limitation using handheld spirometry in subjects with risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

How to Enhance the Diagnosis of Early Stages of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)? The Role of Mobile Spirometry in COPD Screening and Diagnosis-A Systematic Review

COPD is the third leading cause of death worldwide. Its diagnosis can be made with spirometry, which is underused due to its limited accessibility. Portable spirometry holds promise for enhancing the efficacy of COPD diagnoses. The study aimed to estimate COPD prevalence diagnosed with a portable spirometer in high-risk patients and compare it with COPD prevalence based on data from conventional, on-site spirometry. We also evaluated the strategy of a proactive approach to identify COPD in high-risk individuals. We conducted a systematic review of original studies on COPD targeted screening and diagnosis with portable and conventional spirometers selected from 8496 publications initially found in three databases: Cochrane, PubMed, and Embase. The inclusion criteria were met by 28 studies. COPD prevalence evaluated with the use of portable spirometers reached 20.27% and was lower compared to that estimated with the use of conventional spirometers (24.67%). In 11 included studies, postbronchodilator tests were performed with portable spirometers, which enabled a bedside COPD diagnosis. Portable spirometers can be successfully used in COPD targeted screening and diagnosis and thus enhance the detection of COPD at early stages.

Accuracy of portable spirometers in the diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease A meta-analysis

Portable spirometers has been approved for diagnosing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, their diagnostic accuracy has not been reviewed. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the diagnostic value of portable spirometers in detecting COPD. A comprehensive literature search for relevant studies was conducted in PubMed, Embase, CNKI, Wan Fang, and Web of Science databases. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC), area under the curve (AUC), and other related indices were calculated using the bivariate mixed-effect model. Subgroup analysis was performed to explore the source of heterogeneity. Thirty one studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic ratio (DOR), SROC, and AUC of the SROC of portable spirometers were 0.85 (0.81–0.88), 0.85 (0.81–0.88), 5.6 (4.4–7.3), 0.18 (0.15–0.22), 31 (21–46) and 0.91 (0.89–0.94), respectively. Among the three commonly used types of portable spirometers, the accuracy of PIKO-6 was higher (0.95) than that of COPD-6 (0.91) and PEF (0.82). Subgroup analysis indicated that the accuracy of a multi-indices portable spirometer was higher than that of a single-index one (P < 0.05). In addition, portable spirometry performed by professional technicians in tertiary hospitals was more accurate than for those conducted by trained technicians in primary care facilities and communities (P < 0.05). Moreover, the accuracy of studies conducted in developing country was superior to developed country (P < 0.05). Portable spirometers have high accuracy in the diagnosis of COPD. Multi-index COPD-6 and PIKO-6 displayed higher accuracy than others. Standardized training of instrument operators should be considered to achieve reliable results.