PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Alamillo, Dan AU - Gibb, Elizabeth TI - Comparison of Portable Spirometers Study DP - 2023 Oct 01 TA - Respiratory Care PG - 3950822 VI - 68 IP - Suppl 10 4099 - http://rc.rcjournal.com/content/68/Suppl_10/3950822.short 4100 - http://rc.rcjournal.com/content/68/Suppl_10/3950822.full AB - Background: The purpose of this investigation was to compare two spirometers, marketed for home use, with a hospital-based spirometer. Methods: This study was carried out between July 27 to December 12, 2022, using the same control subject. The lab’s spirometer (MGC Diagnostics Platinum Elite Series St. Paul, MN) was used as a control. The home units were the Aluna Spirometer (KNOX Medical Diagnostics, San Francisco, CA) and the SmartOne Peak Flow & FEV1 Meter (Medical International Research, New Berlin, WI). 72 trials, over separate days, were chosen as the study’s length. During that time, FEV1 measurements were made using the control spirometer first followed by the home spirometers, with a 10-minute break between spirometers. Trials 1-26 had the Aluna tested prior to the SmartOne. Trials 27-52 reversed the order of the test spirometers. Trials 27-72 had the control unit tested last. Six consecutive attempts, for each of the units, was used as the maximum number of attempts to obtain data. Statistical analysis was conducted on Microsoft Excel 2016. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all the spirometers. Bland-Altman analysis was conducted on the measured FEV1 data from the home spirometers compared against the control unit with limits of acceptability being calculated as 1.96 ± SD. The agreement of the FEV1 measurements was assessed using the Pearson correlation coefficient (r) while a two-way ANOVA without replication was conducted to assess the differences between the means. Tukey-Kramer post hoc analysis was performed to ascertain if the differences in measurements were significant. Results: Of all 72 trials; 4 had to be removed from consideration because the Aluna failed to provide any reportable data, while it produced less than 3 acceptable attempts for an additional 14 trials. No such problems were seen with the SmartOne or MGC control. Bland-Altman plots demonstrated overall agreement in the FEV1 measurements, although the SmartOne spirometer had measurements which were clustered closer to the mean. Pearson’s (r) demonstrated a moderately significant association with the measurements made by the control, with the SmartOne outperforming the Aluna unit (0.53 vs 0.34, P < .001). ANOVA analysis revealed the FEV1 measurements were significantly different (P < .001) from each unit, while Tukey-Kramer analysis ruled out the null hypothesis between the spirometers. Conclusions: Despite the moderate correlation, both test units consistently reported lower FEV1 data than the control. View this table:FEV1 Descriptive Statistics Between the Control and Test Spirometers