Chest
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Article Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Glindmeyer, H.
Right arrow Articles by Weill, H
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Glindmeyer, H.
Right arrow Articles by Weill, H

Chest, Vol 73, 596-562, Copyright © 1978 by American College of Chest Physicians

ARTICLES

A comparison of the Jones and Stead-Wells spirometers

HW Glindmeyer, ST Anderson, JE Diem and H Weill

A comparison was made between the noncounterweighted Jones and Stead- Wells spirometers, and "conversion factors" were determined for the forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and the forced vital capacity (FVC). A cross-sectional study produced a high correlation between the instruments for these two measurements, yielding quadratic and linear regression equations ("conversion factors") for FEV1 and FVC, respectively. Standard deviations of measurements were similar for both spirometers. Results from a longitudinal study agreed with the "conversion factors" predicted from the cross-sectional study; however, significant day-to-day variability was observed by both spirometers. Neither spirometer met all of the technical recommendations proposed by the Committees on Environmental Health and Respiratory Physiology of the American College of Chest Physicians; however, the Stead-Wells water-sealed spirometer complied more often than the Jones waterless spirometer (Pulmonor). In addition, the open-circuit procedure used for the Jones spirometer required more corrdination in the subject than did the closed-circuit procedure employed in this study for the Stead-Wells spirometer; however, with application of the "conversion factors," both instruments, yield comparable data and prove adequate for spirometric studies.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ChestHome page
M. C. McCormack, D. Shade, and R. A. Wise
Spirometer Calibration Checks: Is 3.5% Good Enough?
Chest, May 1, 2007; 131(5): 1486 - 1493.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1978 by the American College of Chest Physicians.