Jove
Visualize
Contact Us

Related Experiment Videos

Evaluation of internists' spirometric interpretations

O Hnatiuk1, L Moores, T Loughney

  • 1Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Service, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA.

Journal of General Internal Medicine
|April 1, 1996
PubMed
Summary

This study compared how general internists and pulmonologists interpret spirometry tests. Spirometry is used to assess lung function and detect conditions like asthma or COPD. The researchers reviewed 110 tests from two community hospitals. They found that in about one-third of cases, internists' interpretations differed from those of pulmonologists. The most common errors included mislabeling normal tests as small airways disease and failing to detect restrictive patterns. The study suggests that internists may benefit from better access to guidelines and education on spirometry interpretation. Pulmonologists showed high agreement in their interpretations, indicating the value of standardized guidelines.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Evaluation of a training programme for critical incident debrief facilitators.

Occupational medicine (Oxford, England)·2022
Same author

Multidetector computed tomographic pulmonary angiography in patients with a high clinical probability of pulmonary embolism.

Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH·2015
Same author

Prognostic significance of tricuspid annular displacement in normotensive patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism.

Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH·2014
Same author

NHANES III equations enhance early detection and mortality prediction of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome after hematopoietic SCT.

Bone marrow transplantation·2014
Same author

Thrombolytic therapy and outcome of patients with an acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism.

Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH·2012
Same author

The shock index and the simplified PESI for identification of low-risk patients with acute pulmonary embolism.

The European respiratory journal·2010
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Area of Science:

  • Pulmonary medicine clinical diagnostics
  • Internal medicine quality improvement
  • Respiratory function assessment

Background:

Accurate interpretation of screening spirometry is crucial for diagnosing pulmonary conditions. General internists often handle these tests in community hospitals. However, new guidelines for spirometry are rarely published in general internal medicine journals. This creates a gap in knowledge and may lead to misinterpretations. Prior research has shown that pulmonologists use standardized guidelines more consistently. This paper addresses how frequently general internists apply these same standards. The lack of updated guidelines in general medicine literature is a known issue. This study aims to bridge that gap by comparing interpretations. No prior work had resolved how often internists and pulmonologists differ in diagnosis. This paper provides new data on diagnostic accuracy discrepancies.

Purpose Of The Study:

This study aimed to assess how often general internists interpret spirometric tests differently from pulmonologists. The goal was to evaluate the impact of guideline availability on diagnostic accuracy. The researchers focused on a Continuous Quality Improvement project. They analyzed real-world spirometry results from two hospitals. The study compared interpretations from internists and pulmonologists. The pulmonologists used American Thoracic Society guidelines. Internists' interpretations were compared against these standards. The study sought to quantify how often misinterpretations occur.

Keywords:
spirometry interpretationpulmonary function testinginternal medicine guidelinesdiagnostic accuracy

Frequently Asked Questions

The study found that general internists differed from pulmonologists in about one-third of spirometry interpretations.

The study analyzed all available tests from two community hospitals over three months, including only those on individuals aged 18 or older.

The study found that internists mislabeled normal tests as small airways disease in eight cases, possibly due to guideline unfamiliarity.

The high agreement suggests pulmonologists consistently apply ATS guidelines, serving as a reliable diagnostic standard.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Methods:

The study reviewed all available spirometric tests from two community hospitals over three months. Only tests on individuals aged 18 or older were included. A total of 110 tests were analyzed from 84 males and 26 females. The age range was 18 to 77 years with an average of 41 years. Two board-certified pulmonologists independently interpreted the tests. They were blinded to the internists' interpretations. The researchers compared diagnostic labels and patterns. Disagreements were categorized based on diagnostic categories and confidence levels.

Main Results:

The two pulmonologists had 97% agreement in their interpretations. In 73 cases, both pulmonologists and internists agreed on results. The majority of tests showed normal spirometry (54 cases). In three cases, only one pulmonologist agreed with the internists. In 29 cases, both pulmonologists disagreed with the internists. Sensitivity was 58.8% with a confidence interval of 42.2% to 73.3%. Specificity was 81.8% with a confidence interval of 70.0% to 89.8%. The most common errors were mislabeling normal tests as small airways disease (8 cases).

Conclusions:

The study found that general internists differed from pulmonologists in about one-third of cases. This discrepancy may stem from limited access to updated guidelines. The authors suggest wider dissemination of ATS guidelines could improve accuracy. They propose ongoing education for internists to enhance diagnostic skills. The study highlights the importance of standardized interpretation methods. The findings suggest that pulmonologists' interpretations are more aligned with guidelines. The authors emphasize the need for better communication of subspecialty guidelines. These results support the value of continuous quality improvement initiatives.

The sensitivity was 58.8%, indicating that internists correctly identified abnormal results in less than 60% of cases.

The authors suggest wider dissemination of ATS guidelines and ongoing education to improve internists' diagnostic accuracy.