title: Spirometry in healthy subjects: do technical details of the test procedure affect the results?
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Spirometry should follow strict quality criteria. The American Thoracic Society (ATS) recommends the use of a noseclip; however there are controversies about its need. ATS also indicates that tests should be done in the sitting position, but there are no recommendations neither about position of the upper limbs and lower limbs nor about who should hold the mouthpiece while performing the maneuvers: evaluated subject or evaluator.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To compare noseclip use or not, different upper and lower limbs positions and who holds the mouthpiece, verifying if these technical details affect spirometric results in healthy adults.
  
  
  METHODS
  One hundred and three healthy individuals (41 men; age: 47 [33-58] years; normal lung function: FEV₁/FVC = 83±5, FEV₁ = 94 [88-104]%predicted, FVC = 92 [84-102]%predicted) underwent a protocol consisting of four spirometric comparative analysis in the sitting position: 1) maximum voluntary ventilation (MVV) with vs without noseclip; 2) FVC performed with vs without upper limbs support; 3) FVC performed with lower limbs crossed vs lower limbs in neutral position; 4) FVC, slow vital capacity and MVV comparing the evaluated subject holding the mouthpiece vs evaluator holding it.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Different spirometric variables presented statistically significant difference (p<0.05) when analysing the four comparisons; however, none of them showed any variation larger than those considered as acceptable according to the ATS reproducibility criteria.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  There was no relevant variation in spirometric results when analyzing technical details such as noseclip use during MVV, upper and lower limb positions and who holds the mouthpiece when performing the tests in healthy adults.
authors.affiliation: Laboratory of Research in Respiratory Physiotherapy (LFIP), Departament of Physiotherapy, Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL), Londrina, Paraná, Brazil.
authors.forename: Luciana
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Sipoli
authors.affiliation: Laboratory of Research in Respiratory Physiotherapy (LFIP), Departament of Physiotherapy, Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL), Londrina, Paraná, Brazil.
authors.forename: Larissa
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Martinez
authors.affiliation: Laboratory of Research in Respiratory Physiotherapy (LFIP), Departament of Physiotherapy, Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL), Londrina, Paraná, Brazil.
authors.forename: Leila
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Donária
authors.affiliation: Laboratory of Research in Respiratory Physiotherapy (LFIP), Departament of Physiotherapy, Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL), Londrina, Paraná, Brazil; Research Center in Health Sciences, Universidade Norte do Paraná (UNOPAR), Londrina, Paraná, Brazil.
authors.forename: Vanessa Suziane
authors.initials: VS
authors.lastname: Probst
authors.affiliation: Laboratory of Research in Respiratory Physiotherapy (LFIP), Departament of Physiotherapy, Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL), Londrina, Paraná, Brazil.
authors.forename: Graciane Laender
authors.initials: GL
authors.lastname: Moreira
authors.affiliation: Laboratory of Research in Respiratory Physiotherapy (LFIP), Departament of Physiotherapy, Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL), Londrina, Paraná, Brazil.
authors.forename: Fabio
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Pitta
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D012016:Reference Values; D013147:Spirometry / Q000379:methods*