Tuberc Respir Dis Search


Tuberc Respir Dis > Epub ahead of print
DOI:    [Epub ahead of print]
Published online March 24, 2021.
Reliability of Portable Spirometry Performed in the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Compared to Conventional Spirometry
Hye Jung Park, M.D., Ph.D.1  , Chin Kook Rhee, M.D., Ph.D.2, Kwang Ha Yoo, M.D., Ph.D.3, Yong Bum Park, M.D.4 
1Department of Internal Medicine, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
2Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea
3Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
4Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Hallym University Kangdong Sacred Heart Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Correspondence:  Yong Bum Park, Tel: 82-2-2225-2754, Fax: 82-2-2224-2569, 
Received: 25 January 2021   • Revised: 12 March 2021   • Accepted: 24 March 2021
The Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES) is a well-designed survey to collect national data, which many researchers have used for their studies. In KNHANES, although portable spirometry was used, its reliability has not been verified.
We prospectively enrolled 58 participants from four Korean institutions. The participants were classified into normal pattern, obstructive pattern, and restrictive pattern groups according to their previous spirometry results. Lung function was estimated by conventional spirometry and portable spirometry, and the results were compared.
The intraclass correlation coefficients of forced vital capacity (FVC) (coefficient, 9.993; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.988–0.996), forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) (coefficient, 0.997; 95% CI, 0.995–0.998), FEV1/FVC ratio (coefficient, 0.995; 95% CI, 0.992–0.997), and forced expiratory flow at 25–75% (FEF25–75%; coefficient, 0.991; 95% CI, 0.984–0.994) were excellent (all p<0.001). In the subgroup analysis, the results of the three parameters were similar in all groups. In the overall and subgroup analyses, Pearson’s correlation of all the parameters was also excellent in the total (coefficient, 0.986–0.994; p<0.001) and subgroup analyses (coefficient, 0.915–0.995; p<0.001). In the paired t-test, FVC, FEV1/FVC, and FEF25–75% estimated by the two instruments were statistically different. However, FEV1 was not significantly different.
Lung function estimated by portable spirometry was well-correlated with that estimated by conventional spirometry. Although the values had minimal differences between them, we suggest that the spirometry results from the KNHANES are reliable.
Key Words: Pulmonary Function Test, Reliability, Spirometry

Article category

Browse all articles >


Browse all articles >

Editorial Office
101-605, 58, Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu (Seocho-dong, Seocho Art-Xi), Seoul 06652, Korea
Tel: +82-2-575-3825, +82-2-576-5347    Fax: +82-2-572-6683    E-mail:                

Copyright © 2021 by The Korean Academy of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases. All rights reserved.

Developed in M2PI

Close layer
prev next