Assessment of the accuracy of an alternative lung function test

  • Research type

    Research Study

  • Full title

    Assessment of the accuracy and validity of an alternative simpler lung function test

  • IRAS ID

    180686

  • Contact name

    Andrew Farmery

  • Contact email

    andrew.farmery@nda.ox.ac.uk

  • Sponsor organisation

    University of Oxford

  • Duration of Study in the UK

    3 years, 0 months, 1 days

  • Research summary

    Patients with respiratory disease are often referred for lung function testing to aid with the diagnosis and to monitor disease progress. These tests measure various properties of the lung such as its volume, and how rapidly air can be expelled from it. These tests have changed little since the 1930s. Measurement of lung volume involves specialist equipment and trained personnel. Measurements of airflow can be unreliable, and depend as much on the effort invested by patients as it does on their their pulmonary disease severity. Patients are required to blow as hard as they can for as long as they can into a flow meter. Many find this either impossible or that it is an unpleasant experience often triggering coughing, wheezing and breathlessness. It is acknowledged that these traditional lung function tests are relatively insensitive to early and subtle changes in lung disease, and that they only become abnormal when disease is moderately established.

    We are assessing a new test of lung function (the InspiWave test) which can measure some of the same properties as the traditional tests, and also some additional properties. It is likely that this can detect abnormalities at an earlier stage of disease where changes may be subtle. It does not require complex equipment or specially trained personnel to operate it. Patients are not required to perform any particular manoeuvres, other than breathe normally into the mouth or nosepiece for a about 10-15 minutes.

    We aim to study a stratified group of patients/volunteers (with lung disease severities/symptoms ranging from healthy through to moderately severe) who have been referred for lung function testing as part of their routine clinical care. In addition to their routine tests, we seek to perform the Inspiwave test and to compare the results, ease of use and patient satisfaction.

  • REC name

    South Central - Hampshire B Research Ethics Committee

  • REC reference

    16/SC/0057

  • Date of REC Opinion

    18 Feb 2016

  • REC opinion

    Further Information Favourable Opinion