Comparison of race-specific and race-neutral GLI spirometric reference equations with an Indian reference equation

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Respiratory medicine Pub Date : 2024-08-10 DOI:10.1016/j.rmed.2024.107764
Subhabrata Moitra , Ritabrata Mitra , Saibal Moitra
{"title":"Comparison of race-specific and race-neutral GLI spirometric reference equations with an Indian reference equation","authors":"Subhabrata Moitra ,&nbsp;Ritabrata Mitra ,&nbsp;Saibal Moitra","doi":"10.1016/j.rmed.2024.107764","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Despite the increasing popularity and use of Global Lung Function Initiative (GLI) spirometric reference equations, the appropriateness of the race-specific and race-neutral GLI spirometric reference models among the Indian population has not been systematically investigated.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>In this cross-sectional analysis, we used spirometric measurements of 1123 healthy Indian adults (≥18 years of age). We computed reference values and z-scores for forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV<sub>1</sub>), and FEV<sub>1</sub>/FVC from race-specific and race-neutral GLI reference equations as well as from a widely used Indian reference equation. We studied heterogeneity between GLI equations and the Indian equations using Bland-Altman analysis, and the differences between the reference and observed values were compared using the Friedman test.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In Bland-Altman analysis, significant heterogeneity in FVC and FEV<sub>1</sub> between race-specific and Indian equations was observed (bias: 10.4 % and 14.1 %, respectively), with less bias for FEV<sub>1</sub>/FVC (3.76 %). The race-neutral equations showed almost similar bias (9.8 %, 13.8 %, and 3.8 % for FVC, FEV<sub>1</sub>, and FEV<sub>1</sub>/FVC, respectively). Median differences in race-specific reference values from observed values for FVC and FEV<sub>1</sub> were 0.49L and 0.44L, respectively, decreasing slightly with race-neutral equations (0.46L and 0.43L) whereas Indian models showed minimal differences (FVC: 0.10L, FEV<sub>1</sub>: 0.05L). Z-scores for FVC and FEV<sub>1</sub> were significantly different between race-specific and race-neutral GLI equations, and both differed from Indian equations.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Both race-specific and race-neutral GLI reference equations are significantly different from the Indian equations, which underscores the importance of determining the suitability of global reference models before being used indiscriminately.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":21057,"journal":{"name":"Respiratory medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Respiratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0954611124002397","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Despite the increasing popularity and use of Global Lung Function Initiative (GLI) spirometric reference equations, the appropriateness of the race-specific and race-neutral GLI spirometric reference models among the Indian population has not been systematically investigated.

Methods

In this cross-sectional analysis, we used spirometric measurements of 1123 healthy Indian adults (≥18 years of age). We computed reference values and z-scores for forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), and FEV1/FVC from race-specific and race-neutral GLI reference equations as well as from a widely used Indian reference equation. We studied heterogeneity between GLI equations and the Indian equations using Bland-Altman analysis, and the differences between the reference and observed values were compared using the Friedman test.

Results

In Bland-Altman analysis, significant heterogeneity in FVC and FEV1 between race-specific and Indian equations was observed (bias: 10.4 % and 14.1 %, respectively), with less bias for FEV1/FVC (3.76 %). The race-neutral equations showed almost similar bias (9.8 %, 13.8 %, and 3.8 % for FVC, FEV1, and FEV1/FVC, respectively). Median differences in race-specific reference values from observed values for FVC and FEV1 were 0.49L and 0.44L, respectively, decreasing slightly with race-neutral equations (0.46L and 0.43L) whereas Indian models showed minimal differences (FVC: 0.10L, FEV1: 0.05L). Z-scores for FVC and FEV1 were significantly different between race-specific and race-neutral GLI equations, and both differed from Indian equations.

Conclusion

Both race-specific and race-neutral GLI reference equations are significantly different from the Indian equations, which underscores the importance of determining the suitability of global reference models before being used indiscriminately.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
将种族特异性和种族中立性 GLI 肺活量参考方程与印度参考方程进行比较。
背景:尽管全球肺功能倡议(GLI)肺量测定参考方程越来越受欢迎,使用率也越来越高,但在印度人群中,种族特异性和种族中立性 GLI 肺量测定参考模型的适宜性尚未得到系统研究:在这项横断面分析中,我们使用了 1 123 名健康印度成年人(≥ 18 岁)的肺活量测量数据。我们根据种族特异性和种族中立性 GLI 参考方程以及广泛使用的印度参考方程计算出了强迫生命容量 (FVC)、1 秒钟强迫呼气容积 (FEV1) 和 FEV1/FVC 的参考值和 z 值。我们使用 Bland-Altman 分析法研究了 GLI 方程和印度方程之间的异质性,并使用 Friedman 检验法比较了参考值和观察值之间的差异:在 Bland-Altman 分析中,观察到种族特异性方程和印度方程之间在 FVC 和 FEV1 方面存在明显的异质性(偏差分别为 10.4% 和 14.1%),FEV1/FVC 的偏差较小(3.76%)。种族中性方程显示出几乎相似的偏差(FVC、FEV1 和 FEV1/FVC 的偏差分别为 9.8%、13.8% 和 3.8%)。FVC 和 FEV1 的种族特异性参考值与观察值的中位数差异分别为 0.49L 和 0.44L,种族中性方程的差异略有减少(0.46L 和 0.43L),而印度模型的差异极小(FVC:0.10L,FEV1:0.05L)。FVC 和 FEV1 的 Z 值在种族特异性和种族中性 GLI 方程之间存在显著差异,且两者均不同于印度方程:结论:种族特异性和种族中性 GLI 参考方程均与印度方程存在显著差异,这凸显了在不加区别地使用全球参考模型之前确定其适用性的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Respiratory medicine
Respiratory medicine 医学-呼吸系统
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
199
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: Respiratory Medicine is an internationally-renowned journal devoted to the rapid publication of clinically-relevant respiratory medicine research. It combines cutting-edge original research with state-of-the-art reviews dealing with all aspects of respiratory diseases and therapeutic interventions. Topics include adult and paediatric medicine, epidemiology, immunology and cell biology, physiology, occupational disorders, and the role of allergens and pollutants. Respiratory Medicine is increasingly the journal of choice for publication of phased trial work, commenting on effectiveness, dosage and methods of action.
期刊最新文献
Understanding the acceptability of the changing model of care in cystic fibrosis Efficacy of balloon pulmonary angioplasty in patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary disease and exercise pulmonary hypertension Epistaxis in COVID positive ICU patients, implications, and future interventions Prognostic Role of Pleural Fluid SUVpeak Value obtained from 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with Malignant Pleural Effusion. β-Blockers and Asthma: Surprising findings from the FAERS database
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1