Survey of clinical infant lung function testing practices

Stacey L. Peterson-Carmichael, Margaret Rosenfeld, Simon B. Ascher, Christoph P. Hornik, H. G M Arets, Stephanie Davis, Graham L. Hall

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background Data supporting the clinical use of infant lung function (ILF) tests are limited making the interpretation of clinical ILF measures difficult. Objectives To evaluate current ILF testing practices and to survey users regarding the indications, limitations and perceived clinical benefits of ILF testing. Methods We created a 26-item survey hosted on the European Respiratory Society (ERS) website between January and May 2010. Notifications were sent to members of the ERS, American Thoracic Society and the Asian Pacific Society of Respirology. Responses were sought from ILF laboratory directors and pediatric respirologists. The survey assessed the clinical indications, patient populations, equipment and reference data used, and perceived limitations of ILF testing. Results We received 148 responses with 98 respondents having ILF equipment and performing testing in a clinical capacity. Centers in North America were less likely to perform ≥50 studies/year than centers in Europe or other continents (13% vs. 41%). Most respondents used ILF data to either "start a new therapy" (78%) or "help decide about initiation of further diagnostic workup such as bronchoscopy, chest CT or serological testing" (69%). Factors reported as limiting clinical ILF testing were need for sedation, uncertainty regarding clinical impact of study results and time intensive nature of the study. Conclusions Clinical practices associated with ILF testing vary significantly; centers that perform more studies are more likely to use the results for clinical purposes and decision making. The future of ILF testing is uncertain in the face of the limitations perceived by the survey respondents. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2014; 49:126-131.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)126-131
Number of pages6
JournalPediatric Pulmonology
Volume49
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2014

Fingerprint

Lung
Surveys and Questionnaires
Equipment and Supplies
Respiratory Function Tests
Bronchoscopy
North America
Uncertainty
Thorax
Pediatrics
Population

Keywords

  • clinical practices
  • infant
  • pulmonary function
  • survey

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

Cite this

Peterson-Carmichael, S. L., Rosenfeld, M., Ascher, S. B., Hornik, C. P., Arets, H. G. M., Davis, S., & Hall, G. L. (2014). Survey of clinical infant lung function testing practices. Pediatric Pulmonology, 49(2), 126-131. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppul.22807

Survey of clinical infant lung function testing practices. / Peterson-Carmichael, Stacey L.; Rosenfeld, Margaret; Ascher, Simon B.; Hornik, Christoph P.; Arets, H. G M; Davis, Stephanie; Hall, Graham L.

In: Pediatric Pulmonology, Vol. 49, No. 2, 02.2014, p. 126-131.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Peterson-Carmichael, SL, Rosenfeld, M, Ascher, SB, Hornik, CP, Arets, HGM, Davis, S & Hall, GL 2014, 'Survey of clinical infant lung function testing practices', Pediatric Pulmonology, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 126-131. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppul.22807
Peterson-Carmichael SL, Rosenfeld M, Ascher SB, Hornik CP, Arets HGM, Davis S et al. Survey of clinical infant lung function testing practices. Pediatric Pulmonology. 2014 Feb;49(2):126-131. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppul.22807
Peterson-Carmichael, Stacey L. ; Rosenfeld, Margaret ; Ascher, Simon B. ; Hornik, Christoph P. ; Arets, H. G M ; Davis, Stephanie ; Hall, Graham L. / Survey of clinical infant lung function testing practices. In: Pediatric Pulmonology. 2014 ; Vol. 49, No. 2. pp. 126-131.
@article{17d18c9a5432425b958837d7392306bd,
title = "Survey of clinical infant lung function testing practices",
abstract = "Background Data supporting the clinical use of infant lung function (ILF) tests are limited making the interpretation of clinical ILF measures difficult. Objectives To evaluate current ILF testing practices and to survey users regarding the indications, limitations and perceived clinical benefits of ILF testing. Methods We created a 26-item survey hosted on the European Respiratory Society (ERS) website between January and May 2010. Notifications were sent to members of the ERS, American Thoracic Society and the Asian Pacific Society of Respirology. Responses were sought from ILF laboratory directors and pediatric respirologists. The survey assessed the clinical indications, patient populations, equipment and reference data used, and perceived limitations of ILF testing. Results We received 148 responses with 98 respondents having ILF equipment and performing testing in a clinical capacity. Centers in North America were less likely to perform ≥50 studies/year than centers in Europe or other continents (13{\%} vs. 41{\%}). Most respondents used ILF data to either {"}start a new therapy{"} (78{\%}) or {"}help decide about initiation of further diagnostic workup such as bronchoscopy, chest CT or serological testing{"} (69{\%}). Factors reported as limiting clinical ILF testing were need for sedation, uncertainty regarding clinical impact of study results and time intensive nature of the study. Conclusions Clinical practices associated with ILF testing vary significantly; centers that perform more studies are more likely to use the results for clinical purposes and decision making. The future of ILF testing is uncertain in the face of the limitations perceived by the survey respondents. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2014; 49:126-131.",
keywords = "clinical practices, infant, pulmonary function, survey",
author = "Peterson-Carmichael, {Stacey L.} and Margaret Rosenfeld and Ascher, {Simon B.} and Hornik, {Christoph P.} and Arets, {H. G M} and Stephanie Davis and Hall, {Graham L.}",
year = "2014",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1002/ppul.22807",
language = "English",
volume = "49",
pages = "126--131",
journal = "Pediatric Pulmonology",
issn = "8755-6863",
publisher = "Wiley-Liss Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Survey of clinical infant lung function testing practices

AU - Peterson-Carmichael, Stacey L.

AU - Rosenfeld, Margaret

AU - Ascher, Simon B.

AU - Hornik, Christoph P.

AU - Arets, H. G M

AU - Davis, Stephanie

AU - Hall, Graham L.

PY - 2014/2

Y1 - 2014/2

N2 - Background Data supporting the clinical use of infant lung function (ILF) tests are limited making the interpretation of clinical ILF measures difficult. Objectives To evaluate current ILF testing practices and to survey users regarding the indications, limitations and perceived clinical benefits of ILF testing. Methods We created a 26-item survey hosted on the European Respiratory Society (ERS) website between January and May 2010. Notifications were sent to members of the ERS, American Thoracic Society and the Asian Pacific Society of Respirology. Responses were sought from ILF laboratory directors and pediatric respirologists. The survey assessed the clinical indications, patient populations, equipment and reference data used, and perceived limitations of ILF testing. Results We received 148 responses with 98 respondents having ILF equipment and performing testing in a clinical capacity. Centers in North America were less likely to perform ≥50 studies/year than centers in Europe or other continents (13% vs. 41%). Most respondents used ILF data to either "start a new therapy" (78%) or "help decide about initiation of further diagnostic workup such as bronchoscopy, chest CT or serological testing" (69%). Factors reported as limiting clinical ILF testing were need for sedation, uncertainty regarding clinical impact of study results and time intensive nature of the study. Conclusions Clinical practices associated with ILF testing vary significantly; centers that perform more studies are more likely to use the results for clinical purposes and decision making. The future of ILF testing is uncertain in the face of the limitations perceived by the survey respondents. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2014; 49:126-131.

AB - Background Data supporting the clinical use of infant lung function (ILF) tests are limited making the interpretation of clinical ILF measures difficult. Objectives To evaluate current ILF testing practices and to survey users regarding the indications, limitations and perceived clinical benefits of ILF testing. Methods We created a 26-item survey hosted on the European Respiratory Society (ERS) website between January and May 2010. Notifications were sent to members of the ERS, American Thoracic Society and the Asian Pacific Society of Respirology. Responses were sought from ILF laboratory directors and pediatric respirologists. The survey assessed the clinical indications, patient populations, equipment and reference data used, and perceived limitations of ILF testing. Results We received 148 responses with 98 respondents having ILF equipment and performing testing in a clinical capacity. Centers in North America were less likely to perform ≥50 studies/year than centers in Europe or other continents (13% vs. 41%). Most respondents used ILF data to either "start a new therapy" (78%) or "help decide about initiation of further diagnostic workup such as bronchoscopy, chest CT or serological testing" (69%). Factors reported as limiting clinical ILF testing were need for sedation, uncertainty regarding clinical impact of study results and time intensive nature of the study. Conclusions Clinical practices associated with ILF testing vary significantly; centers that perform more studies are more likely to use the results for clinical purposes and decision making. The future of ILF testing is uncertain in the face of the limitations perceived by the survey respondents. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2014; 49:126-131.

KW - clinical practices

KW - infant

KW - pulmonary function

KW - survey

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84892922641&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84892922641&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/ppul.22807

DO - 10.1002/ppul.22807

M3 - Article

VL - 49

SP - 126

EP - 131

JO - Pediatric Pulmonology

JF - Pediatric Pulmonology

SN - 8755-6863

IS - 2

ER -