Spirometer calibration checks

Is 3.5% good enough?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Current standards for spirometry require daily calibration checks to come within 3.5% of the inserted volume but do not require evaluation of trends over time. We examined the current guidelines and candidate quality control rules to determine the best method for identifying spirometers with suboptimal performance. Methods: Daily calibration checks on seven volume spirometers recorded over 4 to 11 years were reviewed. Current guidelines and candidate quality control rules were applied to determine how well each detected suboptimal spirometer performance. Results: Overall, 98% of 7,497 calibration checks were within 3.5%. However, based on visual inspection of calibration check data plots, spirometers 3 and 5 demonstrated systematic sources of error, drift, and bias. The ± 3.5% criteria did not identify these spirometers. The application of ± 2% criteria identified these spirometers (9% out-of control values in spirometers 3 and 5 vs <5% in other spirometers). A rule stipulating out-of-control conditions when four consecutive checks exceeded 1% deviation identified suboptimal spirometers (14% and 20% out-of-control values) but maintained low error detection rates in other spirometers (≤ 2%). Other candidate rules were less effective or required longer times to error detection. Conclusions: The current recommendation that calibration checks come within ± 3.5% of the inserted volume did not detect subtle errors. Alternative candidate rules were more effective in detecting errors and maintained low overall error-detection rates. Our findings emphasize the need for laboratories to systematically review calibration checks over time and suggest that more stringent guidelines for calibration checks may be warranted for volume spirometers. Although our general approach may also be appropriate for flow-type spirometers, the details are likely to differ since flow-type spirometers are a much more varied category of equipment.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1486-1493
Number of pages8
JournalChest
Volume131
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2007

Fingerprint

Calibration
Guidelines
Quality Control
Spirometry
Research Design
Equipment and Supplies

Keywords

  • Calibration
  • Lung function
  • Pulmonary function test
  • Quality control
  • Spirometry

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

Cite this

Spirometer calibration checks : Is 3.5% good enough? / McCormack, Meredith; Shade, Dave; Wise, Robert A.

In: Chest, Vol. 131, No. 5, 05.2007, p. 1486-1493.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e83588cf43824d8c8855a9820df8018c,
title = "Spirometer calibration checks: Is 3.5{\%} good enough?",
abstract = "Background: Current standards for spirometry require daily calibration checks to come within 3.5{\%} of the inserted volume but do not require evaluation of trends over time. We examined the current guidelines and candidate quality control rules to determine the best method for identifying spirometers with suboptimal performance. Methods: Daily calibration checks on seven volume spirometers recorded over 4 to 11 years were reviewed. Current guidelines and candidate quality control rules were applied to determine how well each detected suboptimal spirometer performance. Results: Overall, 98{\%} of 7,497 calibration checks were within 3.5{\%}. However, based on visual inspection of calibration check data plots, spirometers 3 and 5 demonstrated systematic sources of error, drift, and bias. The ± 3.5{\%} criteria did not identify these spirometers. The application of ± 2{\%} criteria identified these spirometers (9{\%} out-of control values in spirometers 3 and 5 vs <5{\%} in other spirometers). A rule stipulating out-of-control conditions when four consecutive checks exceeded 1{\%} deviation identified suboptimal spirometers (14{\%} and 20{\%} out-of-control values) but maintained low error detection rates in other spirometers (≤ 2{\%}). Other candidate rules were less effective or required longer times to error detection. Conclusions: The current recommendation that calibration checks come within ± 3.5{\%} of the inserted volume did not detect subtle errors. Alternative candidate rules were more effective in detecting errors and maintained low overall error-detection rates. Our findings emphasize the need for laboratories to systematically review calibration checks over time and suggest that more stringent guidelines for calibration checks may be warranted for volume spirometers. Although our general approach may also be appropriate for flow-type spirometers, the details are likely to differ since flow-type spirometers are a much more varied category of equipment.",
keywords = "Calibration, Lung function, Pulmonary function test, Quality control, Spirometry",
author = "Meredith McCormack and Dave Shade and Wise, {Robert A}",
year = "2007",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1378/chest.06-1522",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "131",
pages = "1486--1493",
journal = "Chest",
issn = "0012-3692",
publisher = "American College of Chest Physicians",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Spirometer calibration checks

T2 - Is 3.5% good enough?

AU - McCormack, Meredith

AU - Shade, Dave

AU - Wise, Robert A

PY - 2007/5

Y1 - 2007/5

N2 - Background: Current standards for spirometry require daily calibration checks to come within 3.5% of the inserted volume but do not require evaluation of trends over time. We examined the current guidelines and candidate quality control rules to determine the best method for identifying spirometers with suboptimal performance. Methods: Daily calibration checks on seven volume spirometers recorded over 4 to 11 years were reviewed. Current guidelines and candidate quality control rules were applied to determine how well each detected suboptimal spirometer performance. Results: Overall, 98% of 7,497 calibration checks were within 3.5%. However, based on visual inspection of calibration check data plots, spirometers 3 and 5 demonstrated systematic sources of error, drift, and bias. The ± 3.5% criteria did not identify these spirometers. The application of ± 2% criteria identified these spirometers (9% out-of control values in spirometers 3 and 5 vs <5% in other spirometers). A rule stipulating out-of-control conditions when four consecutive checks exceeded 1% deviation identified suboptimal spirometers (14% and 20% out-of-control values) but maintained low error detection rates in other spirometers (≤ 2%). Other candidate rules were less effective or required longer times to error detection. Conclusions: The current recommendation that calibration checks come within ± 3.5% of the inserted volume did not detect subtle errors. Alternative candidate rules were more effective in detecting errors and maintained low overall error-detection rates. Our findings emphasize the need for laboratories to systematically review calibration checks over time and suggest that more stringent guidelines for calibration checks may be warranted for volume spirometers. Although our general approach may also be appropriate for flow-type spirometers, the details are likely to differ since flow-type spirometers are a much more varied category of equipment.

AB - Background: Current standards for spirometry require daily calibration checks to come within 3.5% of the inserted volume but do not require evaluation of trends over time. We examined the current guidelines and candidate quality control rules to determine the best method for identifying spirometers with suboptimal performance. Methods: Daily calibration checks on seven volume spirometers recorded over 4 to 11 years were reviewed. Current guidelines and candidate quality control rules were applied to determine how well each detected suboptimal spirometer performance. Results: Overall, 98% of 7,497 calibration checks were within 3.5%. However, based on visual inspection of calibration check data plots, spirometers 3 and 5 demonstrated systematic sources of error, drift, and bias. The ± 3.5% criteria did not identify these spirometers. The application of ± 2% criteria identified these spirometers (9% out-of control values in spirometers 3 and 5 vs <5% in other spirometers). A rule stipulating out-of-control conditions when four consecutive checks exceeded 1% deviation identified suboptimal spirometers (14% and 20% out-of-control values) but maintained low error detection rates in other spirometers (≤ 2%). Other candidate rules were less effective or required longer times to error detection. Conclusions: The current recommendation that calibration checks come within ± 3.5% of the inserted volume did not detect subtle errors. Alternative candidate rules were more effective in detecting errors and maintained low overall error-detection rates. Our findings emphasize the need for laboratories to systematically review calibration checks over time and suggest that more stringent guidelines for calibration checks may be warranted for volume spirometers. Although our general approach may also be appropriate for flow-type spirometers, the details are likely to differ since flow-type spirometers are a much more varied category of equipment.

KW - Calibration

KW - Lung function

KW - Pulmonary function test

KW - Quality control

KW - Spirometry

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34248571372&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34248571372&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1378/chest.06-1522

DO - 10.1378/chest.06-1522

M3 - Article

VL - 131

SP - 1486

EP - 1493

JO - Chest

JF - Chest

SN - 0012-3692

IS - 5

ER -