Interpretative strategies for lung function tests

TLDR: This section is written to provide guidance in interpreting pulmonary function tests (PFTs) to medical directors of hospital-based laboratories that perform PFTs, and physicians who are responsible for interpreting the results of PFTS most commonly ordered for clinical purposes.

Abstract: SERIES “ATS/ERS TASK FORCE: STANDARDISATION OF LUNG FUNCTION TESTING” Edited by V. Brusasco, R. Crapo and G. Viegi Number 5 in this Series This section is written to provide guidance in interpreting pulmonary function tests (PFTs) to medical directors of hospital-based laboratories that perform PFTs, and physicians who are responsible for interpreting the results of PFTs most commonly ordered for clinical purposes. Specifically, this section addresses the interpretation of spirometry, bronchodilator response, carbon monoxide diffusing capacity ( D L,CO) and lung volumes. The sources of variation in lung function testing and technical aspects of spirometry, lung volume measurements and D L,CO measurement have been considered in other documents published in this series of Task Force reports 1–4 and in the American Thoracic Society (ATS) interpretative strategies document 5. An interpretation begins with a review and comment on test quality. Tests that are less than optimal may still contain useful information, but interpreters should identify the problems and the direction and magnitude of the potential errors. Omitting the quality review and relying only on numerical results for clinical decision making is a common mistake, which is more easily made by those who are dependent upon computer interpretations. Once quality has been assured, the next steps involve a series of comparisons 6 that include comparisons of test results with reference values based on healthy subjects 5, comparisons with known disease or abnormal physiological patterns ( i.e. obstruction and restriction), and comparisons with self, a rather formal term for evaluating change in an individual patient. A final step in the lung function report is to answer the clinical question that prompted the test. Poor choices made during these preparatory steps increase the risk of misclassification, i.e. a falsely negative or falsely positive interpretation for a lung function abnormality or a change …