{"title":"肺活量诱导方法的比较:强制肺活量与慢速肺活量。","authors":"S N Awan, J A Awan","doi":"10.1016/j.jvoice.2024.12.039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Methods to elicit the vital capacity (VC) include forced vital capacity (FVC) and slow vital capacity (SVC). Because the FVC maneuver can be affected by air trapping or inefficiencies in lung emptying vs. the SVC, the SVC-FVC difference may be substantial and diagnostically meaningful in elderly individuals and patients with respiratory obstruction. However, the degree of SVC-FVC difference in non-respiratory disordered individuals is unclear - some studies indicate a negligible difference, and other studies/guidelines suggest a mean difference in this target group up to 200 mL. This study examined the relationship between FVC vs. SVCs in a group of typical young adult speakers with three forms of measurement device (pneumotach-based; turbine flow meter; vortex whistle).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>FVC and SVCs were collected from 66 non-respiratory disordered subjects (18-30 years) using three methods: a pneumotach system (KoKo Sx1000); a turbine flow spirometer (Micro Spirometer); and 3-D printed vortex whistles and analysis software. FVC and SVC measures were compared and correlated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The upper limit of the 95% CIs for the mean SVC-FVC difference were observed to be < 60-115 mL, depending upon the measurement system used. However, mean SVC-FVC differences were nonsignificant in all methods. Strong correlations between FVC vs. SVC were observed within each device (r's > 0.95), and both FVC and SVC measurements were highly correlated between devices (r's > 0.90).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Mean SVC tends to be slightly greater than mean FVC, though this difference is nonsignificant in typical young adult subjects, making VC measures from SVC vs. FVC essentially interchangeable in this target group. Any SVC vs. FVC differences are detectable via both pneumotach-based spirometry and lower-cost technologies. The SVC method has several benefits vs. FVC for speech-language pathologists who may be conducting VC testing with a large variety of patient groups in diverse (often non-medical) settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":49954,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Voice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Methods of Eliciting Vital Capacity: Forced Versus Slow Vital Capacity.\",\"authors\":\"S N Awan, J A Awan\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jvoice.2024.12.039\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Methods to elicit the vital capacity (VC) include forced vital capacity (FVC) and slow vital capacity (SVC). Because the FVC maneuver can be affected by air trapping or inefficiencies in lung emptying vs. the SVC, the SVC-FVC difference may be substantial and diagnostically meaningful in elderly individuals and patients with respiratory obstruction. However, the degree of SVC-FVC difference in non-respiratory disordered individuals is unclear - some studies indicate a negligible difference, and other studies/guidelines suggest a mean difference in this target group up to 200 mL. This study examined the relationship between FVC vs. SVCs in a group of typical young adult speakers with three forms of measurement device (pneumotach-based; turbine flow meter; vortex whistle).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>FVC and SVCs were collected from 66 non-respiratory disordered subjects (18-30 years) using three methods: a pneumotach system (KoKo Sx1000); a turbine flow spirometer (Micro Spirometer); and 3-D printed vortex whistles and analysis software. FVC and SVC measures were compared and correlated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The upper limit of the 95% CIs for the mean SVC-FVC difference were observed to be < 60-115 mL, depending upon the measurement system used. However, mean SVC-FVC differences were nonsignificant in all methods. Strong correlations between FVC vs. SVC were observed within each device (r's > 0.95), and both FVC and SVC measurements were highly correlated between devices (r's > 0.90).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Mean SVC tends to be slightly greater than mean FVC, though this difference is nonsignificant in typical young adult subjects, making VC measures from SVC vs. FVC essentially interchangeable in this target group. Any SVC vs. FVC differences are detectable via both pneumotach-based spirometry and lower-cost technologies. The SVC method has several benefits vs. FVC for speech-language pathologists who may be conducting VC testing with a large variety of patient groups in diverse (often non-medical) settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49954,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Voice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Voice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2024.12.039\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Voice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2024.12.039","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of Methods of Eliciting Vital Capacity: Forced Versus Slow Vital Capacity.
Background: Methods to elicit the vital capacity (VC) include forced vital capacity (FVC) and slow vital capacity (SVC). Because the FVC maneuver can be affected by air trapping or inefficiencies in lung emptying vs. the SVC, the SVC-FVC difference may be substantial and diagnostically meaningful in elderly individuals and patients with respiratory obstruction. However, the degree of SVC-FVC difference in non-respiratory disordered individuals is unclear - some studies indicate a negligible difference, and other studies/guidelines suggest a mean difference in this target group up to 200 mL. This study examined the relationship between FVC vs. SVCs in a group of typical young adult speakers with three forms of measurement device (pneumotach-based; turbine flow meter; vortex whistle).
Methods: FVC and SVCs were collected from 66 non-respiratory disordered subjects (18-30 years) using three methods: a pneumotach system (KoKo Sx1000); a turbine flow spirometer (Micro Spirometer); and 3-D printed vortex whistles and analysis software. FVC and SVC measures were compared and correlated.
Results: The upper limit of the 95% CIs for the mean SVC-FVC difference were observed to be < 60-115 mL, depending upon the measurement system used. However, mean SVC-FVC differences were nonsignificant in all methods. Strong correlations between FVC vs. SVC were observed within each device (r's > 0.95), and both FVC and SVC measurements were highly correlated between devices (r's > 0.90).
Conclusion: Mean SVC tends to be slightly greater than mean FVC, though this difference is nonsignificant in typical young adult subjects, making VC measures from SVC vs. FVC essentially interchangeable in this target group. Any SVC vs. FVC differences are detectable via both pneumotach-based spirometry and lower-cost technologies. The SVC method has several benefits vs. FVC for speech-language pathologists who may be conducting VC testing with a large variety of patient groups in diverse (often non-medical) settings.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Voice is widely regarded as the world''s premiere journal for voice medicine and research. This peer-reviewed publication is listed in Index Medicus and is indexed by the Institute for Scientific Information. The journal contains articles written by experts throughout the world on all topics in voice sciences, voice medicine and surgery, and speech-language pathologists'' management of voice-related problems. The journal includes clinical articles, clinical research, and laboratory research. Members of the Foundation receive the journal as a benefit of membership.