Journal of Family & Community Medicine
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contact us Login 
 

Users Online: 2172 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size

 

 Table of Contents 
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Year : 2000  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 65-66  

Issues in peak expiratory flow rate measurements: Analysis and interpretation of results


Associate Professor and Consultant, Department of Family & Community Medicine, College of Medicine King Faisal University P.O. Box 2290, Al-Khobar 31952, Saudi Arabia

Date of Web Publication31-Jul-2012

Correspondence Address:
Kasim M Al-Dawood
Department of Family & Community Medicine, College of Medicine King Faisal University P.O. Box 2290, Al-Khobar 31952
Saudi Arabia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


PMID: 23008632

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Al-Dawood KM. Issues in peak expiratory flow rate measurements: Analysis and interpretation of results. J Fam Community Med 2000;7:65-6

How to cite this URL:
Al-Dawood KM. Issues in peak expiratory flow rate measurements: Analysis and interpretation of results. J Fam Community Med [serial online] 2000 [cited 2019 Dec 15];7:65-6. Available from: http://www.jfcmonline.com/text.asp?2000/7/3/65/99200

Sir,

I read with interest the paper by Al-Taweel et al entitled, "Peak expiratory flow rate in a sample of normal Saudi males at Riyadh, Saudi Arabia" published in the Journal of Family & Community Medicine (July 1999 issue). [1] Because the paper was stimulating, it raised the following points:

1. The objective of the study was "to identify the normal peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) for a sample of Saudi males and to compare the finding with British standards". As the sample was drawn from Primary Health Care Centre (PHCC) attendants, I am afraid that this sample may not be representative of the general population. This is important especially if such results will be used to compare with general population from elsewhere i.e. British population.

2. Even if it is assumed that, the objective was to compare PHCC attendants with the same from other populations, still the sample has to be representative. No information was available from the paper to suggest how the sample size (n=680) was calculated and how far it was quantitatively representative to all Riyadh PHCC attendants? (Representing which percentage?) And how it was selected from each PHCC?

3. As age was an important factor in PEFR measurement, the sample collected should have been selected in such a way to give equal number of subjects among different age strata. Failure to do that has resulted in 52.6% of the sample to be from one stratum (<25 years of age), which may represent PHCC attendants but not the Saudi Arabian male adults living in Riyadh. This has resulted in the following:

(a) Age was not normally distributed in the sample (severely skewed to the left, if represented in frequency distribution or histogram). Having had this and in such a case, parameteric methods of analysis may not apply and use of non-parametric methods may be inevitable. Moreover, describing age by mean and standard deviation (SD), of the raw skewed data may not be precise. Instead, geometric (logarithm) mean and SD may be more precise following transformation of raw data to their natural logs.

(b) The drop in the curve in [Figure 2] for Saudis beyond age of 25 years may be due to the fact that majority of the sample (52.6%) was below 25 years of age and only 12.8% were above age 45 years. This may have shifted the curve to the left with severe drop at older ages compared to the British curve. Similarly, [Figure 1] showed severe skewness to the left with peak at age 25 years followed with a drop.

The multiple regression equation showed R 2 = 21% which is a model of a relatively weak predictive power (only 21% of the variation in PEF could be explained by the variation of variables included in the equation). The fact that its p-value was <0.0001 may only indicate that variables included in the model correlate significantly and lineary with PEFR.

In [Table 2], the equation contained two constant values (-338.5, which appeared both in the equation and table) and (+9, which appeared only in the equation but not in the table), which one is correct?

It is advisable not to include adolescents when designing or studying adults' standards of any pulmonary function test, including peak expiratory flow rate. This is because the "difference relate mainly to the ratios of thorax to total body height". [2] Therefore, "adolescents should not be compared with adult standards until puberty and growth are complete. [2] Consequently, inclusion of subjects at prepubertal age in this study was better avoided.

7. Based on 1, 2 and 3 above, I feel that a conclusion such as "this study has shown that Saudi Arabian male adults living in Riyadh have lower peak expiratory flow rate than adults of different racial origin living in UK" was not adequately supported and lacks such generalizability.

 
   References Top

1.Al-Taweel AA, Kalantan KA, Ghani HA. Peak expiratory flow rate in a sample of normal Saudi males at Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Journal of Family & Community Medicine 1999; 6:23-27.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Mueller GA, Eigen H. Pediatric pulmonary function testing in asthma. Asthma 1992; 39:1243-57.  Back to cited text no. 2
    




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1261    
    Printed52    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded158    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

Advertise | Sitemap | What's New | Feedback | Disclaimer
Journal of Family and Community Medicine | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
Online since 05th September, 2010