Skip to main content

Table 3 Lung function of the individuals in each subgroup according to the two criteria

From: Comparison of the lower limit of normal to the fixed ratio method for the diagnosis of airflow obstruction at high altitudes: a large cross-sectional survey of subjects living between 3000–4700 m above sea level

 

FR−/LLN− group (n = 3273)

FR−/LLN+ group (n = 143)

FR+/LLN− group (n = 7)

FR+/LLN+ group (n = 279)

P valuea

FR−/LLN+ group vs. FR−/LLN− group

FR−/LLN+ group vs. FR+/LLN+ group

FEV1—L

3.3 (0.9)

2.8 (0.7)

2.5 (0.9)

2.4 (0.8)

< 0.001

0.004

FEV1—% predicted

108.8 (23.9)

92.7 (19.6)

98.7 (21.1)

86.1 (26.0)

< 0.001

< 0.001

FVC—L

3.8 (1.0)

3.8 (1.0)

3.6 (1.2)

3.9 (1.1)

0.188

0.013

FVC—% predicted

104.6 (25.6)

111.1 (29.8)

103.5 (29.0)

113.8 (30.4)

0.023

0.105

FEV1/FVC—%

87.0 (6.8)

73.6 (2.6)

68.5 (1.1)

61.2 (8.2)

< 0.001

< 0.001

MMEFb—% predicted

87.6 (32.9)

54.0 (14.5)

40.9 (13.9)

37.8 (16.1)

< 0.001

0.004

FEF 50%b—% predicted

104.9 (31.2)

62.4 (16.1)

58.4 (17.7)

45.6 (17.3)

< 0.001

0.001

FEF 75%b—% predicted

112.7 (51.5)

58.5 (24.8)

46.1 (18.6)

50.9 (34.9)

< 0.001

0.051

  1. Data are presented as the mean ± standard deviation
  2. BMI, body mass index; FEV1, forced expiratory volume in 1 s; FVC, forced vital capacity; MMEF, maximal mid-expiratory flow; FEF 50%, forced expiratory flow at 50% of vital capacity; FEF 75%, forced expiratory flow at 75% of vital capacity
  3. aSpirometric data: P-values reported for analysis of covariance with sex and subgroups as fixed variables, and age and BMI as covariates
  4. bData missing for MMEF (n = 123), FEF 50% (n = 7), and FEF 75% (n = 7)
Back to article page

European Journal of Medical Research

ISSN: 2047-783X

Contact us