TY - JOUR ID - 5843 TI - Evaluation of Superiority of FEV1/VC Over FEV1/FVC for Classification of Pulmonary Disorders JO - Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Medicine JA - JCTM LA - en SN - 2345-2447 AU - Mirsadraee, Majid AU - Salarifar, Elnaz AU - Attaran, Davood AD - Pulmonologist,Department of Internal Medicine, Medical School of Islamic Azad University- Mashhad Branch,Lung Disease Research Center, Mashhad, Iran. AD - General practionaire, Zakaria research center, Medical school of Islamic Azad University, Mashhad Branch AD - Pulmonologist, Lung Disease Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical science, Mashhad, Iran. Y1 - 2015 PY - 2015 VL - 3 IS - 4 SP - 355 EP - 359 KW - FEV1/FVC KW - FEV1/VC KW - Obstructive Lung Disease KW - Restrictive Lung Disease KW - Spirometry DO - 10.22038/jctm.2015.5843 N2 - Introduction: Forced expiratory value in one score  (FEV1)/ Forced vital capacity (FVC) was used in classical literature for primary classifications of pulmonary disorders. American Thoracic Society/ European Respiratory Society guidelines recommended using FEV1/VC instead of FEV1/FVC.The aim of study was determination of the extent of superiority of FEV1/VC over the FEV1/FVC. Materials and Methods: Two hundred seven subjects whom suffered from different pulmonary disorders were evaluated by standard spirometry, lung volume and Carbon mono-oxide lung diffusion capacity (DLCO). Accuracy of FEV1/VC and FEV1/FVC for diagnosing lung disease was compared by area under the ROC curve, sensitivity and specificity analysis including Kraemer efficiency and likelihood ration methods. Gold standards were diagnosis confirmed by over-all clinical and para-clinical judgment. Results: Primary classification of FEV1/FVC and FEV1/VC according to gold standards showed that FEV1/FVC detected obstructive and restrictive lung disease better than FEV1/VC. FEV1/FVC was able to detect the obstructive and restrictive lung disease correctly in 61% and 34% and FEV1/VC in 56% and 33% respectively. FEV1/FVC showed 100% agreement with forced expiratory flow (FEF)=25-75%,   and Maximum expiratory flow (MEF)=50% but this agreement for FEV1/VC was 95-96%. Accuracy assessments revealed the superiority of FEV/FVC in the likelihood ratio method. Also, based on the ROC curve and Kraemer’s coefficient, more accurate results were obtained by FEV1/FVC, compared to FEV1/VC. Conclusion: FEV1/FVC showed marginally higher accuracy for detecting lung disease than FEV1/VC. UR - https://jctm.mums.ac.ir/article_5843.html L1 - https://jctm.mums.ac.ir/article_5843_216d82c71e95ae633457a44b6bf17583.pdf ER -