598

CHEST Original ResearchPULMONARY FUNCTION TESTING

Original Research

Grading the severity of lung function impairment is currently based on American Thoracic Society

(ATS)/European Respiratory Society (ERS) guidelines, 1 which determine severity based on FEV 1 % pre-dicted. The guidelines specifi cally recommend using

the FEV 1 % predicted to grade the severity of obstruc-tive, restrictive, and mixed pulmonary disorders. The rationale for choosing the FEV 1 as the measure of severity is based on epidemiologic data that strongly

support FEV 1 as a global measure of health. 1,2 Although this makes sense as a measure of overall lung func-tion impairment, using FEV 1 to gauge the degree of obstruction in mixed disorders would be expected to

Background: The severity of obstructive pulmonary disease is determined by the FEV 1 % pre-dicted based on the American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society (ATS/ERS) guidelines. In patients with coexisting restrictive lung disease, the decrease in FEV 1 can overestimate the degree of obstruction. We hypothesize that adjusting the FEV 1 for the decrease in total lung capacity (TLC) results in a more appropriate grading of the severity of obstruction. Methods: We examined a large pulmonary function test database and identifi ed patients with both restrictive (TLC , 80% predicted) and obstructive (FEV 1 /FVC , the lower limit of normal) lung disease. FEV 1 % predicted was adjusted for the degree of restriction by dividing it by TLC % predicted. We compared the distribution of severity grading between adjusted and unadjusted values according to ATS/ERS criteria and determined how the distribution of severity would change based on asthma and COPD guidelines. Results: We identifi ed 199 patients with coexisting restrictive and obstructive lung disease. By ATS/ERS grading, the unadjusted data categorized 76% of patients as having severe or very severe obstruction and 11% as having mild or moderate obstruction. The adjusted data classifi ed 33% with severe or very severe obstruction and 44% with mild or moderate obstruction. Of the corrected values, 83% resulted in a change to less severe obstruction by ATS/ERS guidelines, and 44% and 70% of patients, respectively, would be reclassifi ed as having less severe obstruction by current asthma and COPD guidelines. Conclusions: This method results in a more appropriate distribution of severity of obstruction, which should lead to more accurate treatment of obstruction in these patients. CHEST 2011; 140(3):598–603

Abbreviations: ATS 5 American Thoracic Society; ERS 5 European Respiratory Society; IPF 5 idiopathic pulmonary fi brosis; ITS 5 Intermountain Thoracic Society; PFT 5 pulmonary function test; RV 5 residual volume; TLC 5 total lung capacity

Grading the Severity of Obstruction in Mixed Obstructive-Restrictive Lung Disease Zechariah S. Gardner , MD ; Gregg L. Ruppel , MEd , RRT , RPFT ; and David A. Kaminsky , MD , FCCP

Manuscript received November 5, 2010; revision accepted February 19, 2011. Affi liations: From the Department of Medicine (Dr Gardner), and Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine (Dr Kaminsky), University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT; and St. Louis University Hospital (Mr Ruppel), St. Louis, MO. Funding/Support: This work was supported by the Vermont Lung Center. Correspondence to: David A. Kaminsky, MD, FCCP, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Given D-213, 89 Beaumont Ave, Burlington, VT 05405; e-mail: david.kaminsky@uvm.edu

© 2011 American College of Chest Physicians. Reproduction of this article is prohibited without written permission from the American College of Chest Physicians ( http://www.chestpubs.org/site/misc/reprints.xhtml ). DOI: 10.1378/chest.10-2860

For editorial comment see page 568

Downloaded From: http://journal.publications.chestnet.org/ on 06/26/2013

www.chestpubs.org CHEST / 140 / 3 / SEPTEMBER, 2011 599

altered in restrictive parenchymal lung disease, we examined lung function data published in studies of idiopathic pulmonary fi brosis (IPF) 8-13 and indeed found that the reduction in FEV 1 was slightly less than the reduction in TLC (mean � FEV 1 / � TLC 5 0.93). In the setting of concomitant obstruction (low FEV 1 /FVC ratio), we theorized that if we adjust the FEV 1 for the proportional loss of TLC, the remaining decrement in FEV 1 should be due to the obstructive component of disease. The resulting FEV 1 % predicted would then be the measure by which to grade the degree of obstruction. We propose that this simple mathemati-cal correction will result in a signifi cant change in severity grading and will more accurately refl ect the true degree of obstruction than either the current ATS/ERS or the ITS guidelines for severity grading.

Materials and Methods

We analyzed a large database of pulmonary function tests (PFTs) collected at St. Louis University Hospital. Equipment and techniques were unchanged throughout the study period and strictly conformed to ATS/ERS criteria for quality. 14,15 The study received exempt status approval from the St. Louis Univer-sity Biomedical Institutional Review Board (#16311) and the University of Vermont Committees on Human Research (#10-055) because all data were deidentifi ed at the time of analysis .

We identifi ed all patients tested between 2003 and 2009 who had both restrictive lung disease, defi ned as TLC , 80% pre-dicted, 16 and obstructive lung disease, defi ned as FEV 1 /FVC less than the lower limit of normal. 17 All tests met ATS/ERS criteria for acceptability and repeatability, and all predicted values were race corrected, as appropriate. 1 Although the ATS/ERS guidelines defi ne restriction based on TLC less than the fi fth per-centile, we chose to defi ne restriction based on TLC , 80% pre-dicted because this allowed a simple formula for adjustment of FEV 1 that would correspond to the ATS/ERS suggestions for grading severity using FEV 1 % predicted. 1 Based on these guide-lines, we graded the severity of obstruction using the unadjusted FEV 1 . We then adjusted the FEV 1 for the degree of restriction by dividing FEV 1 % predicted by TLC % predicted (or 1.07 3 TLC % predicted) (e-Appendix 1), and all patients were again graded for severity using the adjusted value. To determine whether the adjusted value more accurately refl ected the degree of obstruction, we compared the correlation between the unad-justed FEV 1 and adjusted FEV 1 vs the degree of air trapping as indicated by the residual volume (RV)/TLC ratio. To determine how the proposed strategy changed the severity grading, we com-pared the ATS/ERS grading of the adjusted value with the grading of the unadjusted value. We also compared the severity grading based on the adjusted values using the ATS/ERS system with the ITS grading system. 6 Finally, to determine any potential effect on therapy, we compared the severity grading of the adjusted and unadjusted values using the asthma 5 and COPD 4 severity grad-ing guidelines because these guidelines are commonly used to recommend therapy based on the severity of obstruction.

All data were tabulated in a spreadsheet and analyzed for distribution using standard statistical software (JMP, version 8.0.2; SAS Institute Inc; Cary, North Carolina). All data are expressed as mean � SD, unless otherwise specifi ed. We calculated whether the coeffi cients of determination between the unadjusted and adjusted FEV 1 and RV/TLC were signifi cantly different by the method of Kleinbaum and colleagues. 18 In order to determine

overestimate the degree of obstruction 3 because FEV 1 is reduced from both the obstructive and the restric-tive components of the underlying disease. Under-standing this limitation is important clinically because the health-care provider may mistakenly use this esti-mate of the degree of obstruction to select therapy for the obstructive component based on current treat-ment guidelines for obstructive lung disease. 4,5

To address the issue of grading obstruction in the presence of restriction, Balfe and colleagues 3 based the degree of obstruction on the FEV 1 /FVC ratio, as recommended by the Intermountain Thoracic Soci-ety (ITS). 6 These authors theorized that the ratio would be a more accurate measure of the severity of obstruction in the presence of restriction. They compared their results to the severity of obstruction that would be suggested by the ATS guidelines in use at the time, 7 which were essentially similar to the updated 2005 ATS/ERS guidelines. 1 Both sets of guidelines were meant to help categorize the severity of any spirometric abnormality based on % predicted alone, but this approach was not necessarily meant to apply to the situation of obstruction in the pres-ence of restriction, so called mixed disorder. Never-theless, clinicians commonly use these guidelines to grade the severity of obstruction in any situation of obstruction, restriction, or mixed disorder. The results of the study by Balfe and colleagues 3 showed a signifi -cant decrease in severity grades and, in fact, a com-plete reversal of the distribution of severity when compared with the ATS guidelines. In particular, the distribution of severity based on the ATS criteria was heavily weighted toward severe disease, whereas the ITS grading resulted in predominantly mild dis-ease. Because restrictive lung disease commonly is associated with improved airfl ow (elevated FEV 1 /FVC ratio) due to increased radial traction of airways, it is not surprising that using the FEV 1 /FVC ratio to grade obstruction in the presence of restriction would skew the results toward more mild obstruc-tion. In addition, assuming that the patients studied were chosen at random, we would have expected to see a more even distribution of severity, suggesting that neither the ATS/ERS nor the ITS guidelines are wholly accurate in evaluating the severity of obstruc-tion in patients with mixed disorder.

We have taken a simple approach to address this issue by considering what would happen to the FEV 1 in the setting of a pure parenchymal restrictive pro-cess. Theoretically, the FEV 1 , as a subdivision of the FVC, should be reduced in proportion to the total lung capacity (TLC), like all lung volumes. However, because the FEV 1 /FVC ratio is commonly increased in restrictive parenchymal disorders, 8-13 the true decrement in the FEV 1 is actually slightly less than the decrement in TLC. To determine how FEV 1 is

Downloaded From: http://journal.publications.chestnet.org/ on 06/26/2013

600 Original Research

value more accurately refl ects the degree of obstruc-tion. By ATS/ERS grading, the unadjusted data cate-gorized 76% of the patients as having severe or very severe obstructive disease, with 11% having mild or moderate disease (the remainder having moderately severe disease). The adjusted data set rated 33% with severe or very severe disease and 45% with mild or moderate disease; this distribution was signifi cantly different from that using the unadjusted values ( P , .0001) ( Fig 2 ). In comparison, by ITS guidelines, 98% were graded in the mild to moderate range, with , 1% in the severe category. Among the adjusted values, 83% of patients had a change in grading to less severe obstruction by ATS/ERS guidelines, and 44% and 70%, respectively, had a change to less severe obstruction based on the asthma and COPD severity grading systems ( Fig 3 ). See e-Appendix 1 for the results based on adjusting the FEV 1 by the more accurate factor of 0.93.

Discussion

Current ATS/ERS guidelines 1 recommend using the FEV 1 % predicted to grade the severity of lung

whether the distribution of severity grades was signifi cantly differ-ent between the different grading systems, we used the Bowker test for symmetry. 19

Results

We identified a total of 199 patients with coex-isting restrictive and obstructive lung disease. Of these patients, 37% were women and 74% were white ( Table 1 ). The mean age was 56 � 14 years; the mean FEV 1 , 1.5 � 0.6 L (42 � 14% predicted); mean FEV 1 /FVC, 0.61 � 0.06; and mean TLC, 4.5 � 1 L (71 � 7% predicted). Based on referral requests, patients had a variety of lung diseases, which were categorized into obstructive diseases (eg, asthma, COPD, bronchiectasis), interstitial lung diseases (eg, IPF, pulmonary edema), and extrapulmonary restriction (eg, kyphoscoliosis, obesity). Other catego-ries included lung cancer; evaluation for heart, lung, liver, or kidney transplantation; and unexplained dys-pnea. More than one-half were current or former smok-ers, and many such smokers presented with airfl ow obstruction (and restriction) diagnosed based on PFTs without having had a previous diagnosis of asthma, COPD, or other obstructive lung disease. The cor-relation between FEV 1 and RV/TLC was signifi cantly greater when using the adjusted than when using the unadjusted FEV 1 ( r 2 5 0.42 vs r 2 5 0.36, respec-tively; P 5 .01) ( Fig 1 ), suggesting that the adjusted

Table 1—Demographic and Lung Function Characteristics of Study Population

Characteristic Value

Sample size, No. 199Age, y 56 � 14Sex, male (female) 63 (37)Race White 74 Black 26 Other 0BMI, kg/m2 29 � 8Tobacco use Current or former smoker, % 55 Pack-years smoked 24 � 34Diagnosis Obstructive lung disease 1 ILD 33 Obstructive lung disease 1 EPR 1Tobacco use 1 ILD/EPR 29Sarcoidosis 5Othera 32FEV1, L (% predicted)b 1.5 � 0.6 (42 � 14)FEV1/FVC 0.61 � 0.06TLC, L (% predicted)c 4.5 � 1.0 (71 � 7)

Data are presented as mean � SD or %, unless otherwise indicated. EPR 5 extrapulmonary restriction; ILD 5 interstitial lung disease; TLC 5 total lung capacity.aSee “Results” section for examples.bNational Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 3 data.17

cGoldman et al.16

Figure 1. Relationship between RV/TLC and FEV1 % predicted. A, Unadjusted FEV1 % predicted. B, Adjusted FEV1 % predicted. The coeffi cients of determination (R2 values) are statistically signifi cantly different (P 5 .01). RV/TLC 5 residual volume/total lung capacity.

Downloaded From: http://journal.publications.chestnet.org/ on 06/26/2013

www.chestpubs.org CHEST / 140 / 3 / SEPTEMBER, 2011 601

estimate the degree of obstruction because the reduc-tion in FEV 1 would refl ect the combined effects of both the obstructive and the restrictive components. Based on our clinical observations and those of col-leagues during informal discussions, we believe that this is commonly the case. This impression is sup-ported clinically by the shape of the fl ow-volume and volume-time curves in such patients ( Fig 4 ) because for the same FEV 1 % predicted, patients with mixed obstruction and restriction often have curves that sug-gest markedly less obstruction compared with curves from patients with pure obstruction. Despite appar-ent agreement that overestimation of the degree of obstruction occurs in the presence of restriction, no consensus has emerged on how to better grade the severity of obstruction in these patients.

The approach presented by Balfe and colleagues 3 proposed using ITS criteria 6 to grade obstruction based on the FEV 1 /FVC ratio, and indeed, this approach lowered the severity grade in most sub-jects. In fact, it showed a complete reversal in the distribution of severity grades to predominantly mild obstruction, which perhaps went too far and under-estimated the true degree of obstruction. To cor-rect this, Balfe and colleagues 3 recommended using the ITS grading in these patients but with modifi ed CIs to normalize the distribution of severity grades. However, this strategy was not adopted in the current ATS/ERS guidelines possibly because the proposed grading system involved CIs, which may have been perceived as too complex and not in accord with current ATS/ERS guidelines based on the use of percentage of predicted values .

In the present study, we propose a simple adjust-ment to the currently used measure of severity (FEV 1 ) that is physiologically based and results in a more even distribution of severity grades. The higher coef-fi cient of determination between the adjusted FEV 1 and the RV/TLC ratio compared with that of the unadjusted FEV 1 and the RV/TLC ratio is consistent with the concept that the adjusted value more closely refl ects the obstructive component of disease. The more realistic even distribution of severity also sup-ports the validity of this methodology. We believe that our method could be easily implemented into current ATS/ERS guidelines and would result in grading that better refl ects the true degree of obstruc-tion. Our results show that there would be a signifi -cant downgrading of obstruction by all guidelines. 1,4,5 Although it might appear that this change was greater for the ATS/ERS guidelines (83%) than the asthma or COPD guidelines (44% and 70%, respectively), it is diffi cult to interpret the importance of these differences because of the different grading inter-vals used in each guideline. However, we believe that any substantial downgrading of the severity of

disease in the presence of obstruction, restriction, or mixed disorders. Because FEV 1 is such a strong, independent predictor of health status, this recom-mendation is sensible. However, in the presence of mixed disorders, the severity of the obstructive com-ponent alone also might be assessed on the basis of FEV 1 , an approach that would be expected to over-

Figure 2. Comparison of ATS/ERS severity grading for adjusted and unadjusted FEV1 % predicted. P value indicates signifi cance of difference in distribution between the adjusted and unadjusted values. ATS/ERS 5 American Thoracic Society/European Respi-ratory Society.

Figure 3. A, Expert Panel Report 3 guidelines for grading the severity of airfl ow obstruction in asthma for adjusted and unad-justed FEV1 % predicted. B, GOLD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) guidelines for grading the severity of obstruction in COPD for adjusted and unadjusted FEV1 % pre-dicted. P values indicate signifi cance of difference in distribution between the adjusted and unadjusted values.

Downloaded From: http://journal.publications.chestnet.org/ on 06/26/2013

602 Original Research

in TLC, not all do so in the same way relative to FEV 1 as does IPF. For example, restrictive disorders associated with changes in chest wall compliance 23 or muscle weakness 24 will affect FEV 1 and TLC dif-ferently than diseases that affect lung tissue compli-ance such as IPF. Slightly different correction formulas might be more accurate for these different patient populations; however, we maintain that our results are qualitatively robust because any type of correc-tion that takes into account a proportional change in FEV 1 and TLC will reduce the severity grading of the obstruction, moving it closer to the true degree of obstruction.

Third, although we believe that the current method is more physiologically accurate in grading the sever-ity of obstruction, we only have correlative data between the adjusted FEV 1 and RV/TLC, observa-tions on the shape of the fl ow-volume and volume-time relationships, and clinical impressions to confirm this assumption. Further evidence that this approach is more valid would need to come from assessment of clinical response and outcomes in patients whose treatment was modifi ed based on this new severity grading method.

In conclusion, we have demonstrated that grad-ing the severity of obstruction in mixed obstructive-restrictive lung disease, based on adjusting FEV 1 for the degree of restriction, results in a more realistic distribution of the severity of the obstructive compo-nent that is no longer heavily weighted toward severe obstruction. This approach should result in more accurate treatment of patients based on the obstruc-tive component of their mixed disorder.

Acknowledgments Author contributions: Dr Kaminsky had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

the obstructive component of a mixed disorder is clinically signifi cant because such a change would be expected to lead to different treatment recommen-dations. Medications used to treat more severe obstructive lung disease are expensive and can expose patients to unwanted or adverse side effects. If we can better diagnose the severity of obstruction, we can avoid using medications that are not indicated and incurring the costs and risks associated with their use.

We appreciate that there are some limitations to our fi ndings. First, we based our analysis on a discrete set of PFTs from a single institution. The results, therefore, may not be applicable to other sets of data involving different patients. However, we believe that our data are likely representative of a broad range of patients because they came from a large urban hospital over a long period of time. Given the relative rarity of this combination of mixed obstruc-tive and restrictive disease, 20-22 such a large data set was necessary in order to achieve adequate numbers of patients for analysis.

Second, we assumed that FEV 1 should be adjusted in direct proportion to TLC, but as noted previ-ously, the actual adjustment factor is slightly less, so our current fi ndings are skewed toward less severe obstruction (e-Appendix 1). However, the fact remains that these more accurately adjusted values still result in a distribution of severity ratings that is signifi -cantly less severe than not adjusting the FEV 1 at all. Given this result, and our intention to keep the adjust-ment as simple as possible for ease of use in the clini-cal setting, we advocate using the simpler one-to-one adjustment in the FEV 1 relative to the TLC in mixed disorders. However, one must be cautious in extrapo-lating any adjustment derived from data in patients with IPF to restrictive lung disease in general. Although all restrictive lung diseases result in decreases

Figure 4. Flow-volume and volume-time tracings for a patient with pure obstructive disease (COPD) and for a patient with combined obstructive and restrictive lung disease (COPD 1 idiopathic pulmonary fi brosis), roughly matched for age, sex, and FEV1 % predicted. A, A 63-year-old man with COPD and an FEV1 5 38% predicted. B, A 75-year-old man with both COPD and idiopathic pulmonary fi brosis with an FEV1 5 43% predicted. Notice the obvious differences in signs of obstruction, with the patient in A having a more severely concave upward expiratory limb of the fl ow-volume loop and prolonged emptying on the volume-time tracing.

Downloaded From: http://journal.publications.chestnet.org/ on 06/26/2013

www.chestpubs.org CHEST / 140 / 3 / SEPTEMBER, 2011 603

Dr Gardner: contributed to the study design; data collection, analysis, and interpretation; and writing of the manuscript. Mr Ruppel: contributed to the data collection and interpretation and review of the manuscript. Dr Kaminsky: contributed to the study design; data collection, analysis, and interpretation; and writing of the manuscript. Financial/nonfi nancial disclosures: The authors have reported to CHEST the following conflicts of interest: Dr Kaminsky receives research grant support from the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, and the University of Vermont and honoraria related to teaching from Medical Graphics Corpo-ration and speaking from Merck & Co. Mr Ruppel has received honoraria as a speaker for Medical Graphics Corporation and has consulted with GlaxoSmithKline for quality assurance of pulmo-nary function studies. Dr Gardner has reported that no potential confl icts of interest exist with any companies/organizations whose products or services may be discussed in this article . Role of sponsors: The sponsor had no role in the design of the study, the collection and analysis of the data, or in the preparation of the manuscript . Other contributions : Data were collected at St Louis University Hospital and analyzed at the University of Vermont. We thank Peter Callas, PhD, University of Vermont, for his help with the statistical analysis. Additional information: The e-Appendix can be found in the Online Supplement at http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/140/3/598/suppl/DC1.

References 1 . Pellegrino R , Viegi G , Brusasco V , et al . Interpretative

strategies for lung function tests . Eur Respir J . 2005 ; 26 ( 5 ): 948 - 968 .

2 . Sin DD , Man SF . Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as a risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality . Proc Am Thorac Soc . 2005 ; 2 ( 1 ): 8 - 11 .

3 . Balfe DL , Lewis M , Mohsenifar Z . Grading the severity of obstruction in the presence of a restrictive ventilatory defect . Chest . 2002 ; 122 ( 4 ): 1365 - 1369 .

4 . National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute ; World Health Organization . Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease, 2009 . Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease Web site. http://www.goldcopd.com . Accessed November 4, 2010.

5 . National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute ; National Asthma Education and Prevention Program . Expert Panel Report 3: guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma, 2007 . National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Web site. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/asthma/index.htm . Accessed November 4, 2010.

6 . Morris A , Kanner R , Crapo R , Gardner R . Clinical Pulmonary Function Testing. A Manual of Uniform Laboratory Proce dures . Salt Lake City, UT : Intermountain Thoracic Society ; 1984 .

7 . American Thoracic Society . Lung function testing: selection of reference values and interpretative strategies . Am Rev Respir Dis . 1991 ; 144 ( 5 ): 1202 - 1218 .

8 . Agusti C , Xaubet A , Agusti A , Roca J , Ramirez J , Rodriguez-Roisin R . Clinical and functional assessment of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fi brosis: results of a 3 year follow-up . Eur Respir J . 1994 ; 7 ( 4 ): 643 - 650 .

9 . Akagi T , Matsumoto T , Harada T , et al . Coexistent emphy-sema delays the decrease of vital capacity in idiopathic pul-monary fi brosis . Respir Med . 2009 ; 103 ( 8 ): 1209 - 1215 .

10 . Erbes R , Schaberg T , Loddenkemper R . Lung function tests in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fi brosis. Are they help-ful for predicting outcome? Chest . 1997 ; 111 ( 1 ): 51 - 57 .

11 . Johnston ID , Prescott RJ , Chalmers JC , Rudd RM ; Fibrosing Alveolitis Subcommittee of the Research Committee of the British Thoracic Society . British Thoracic Society study of cryptogenic fi brosing alveolitis: current presentation and ini-tial management . Thorax . 1997 ; 52 ( 1 ): 38 - 44 .

12 . Nathan SD , Shlobin OA , Ahmad S , Urbanek S , Barnett SD . Pulmonary hypertension and pulmonary function testing in idiopathic pulmonary fi brosis . Chest . 2007 ; 131 ( 3 ): 657 - 663 .

13 . Wells AU , Desai SR , Rubens MB , et al . Idiopathic pulmonary fi brosis: a composite physiologic index derived from disease extent observed by computed tomography . Am J Respir Crit Care Med . 2003 ; 167 ( 7 ): 962 - 969 .

14 . Miller MR , Hankinson J , Brusasco V , et al ; ATS/ERS Task Force . Standardisation of spirometry . Eur Respir J . 2005 ; 26 ( 2 ): 319 - 338 .

15 . Wanger J , Clausen JL , Coates A , et al . Standardisation of the measurement of lung volumes . Eur Respir J . 2005 ; 26 ( 3 ): 511 - 522 .

16 . Goldman HI , Becklake MR . Respiratory function tests; nor-mal values at median altitudes and the prediction of normal results . Am Rev Tuberc . 1959 ; 79 ( 4 ): 457 - 467 .

17 . Hankinson JL , Odencrantz JR , Fedan KB . Spirometric refer-ence values from a sample of the general U.S. population . Am J Respir Crit Care Med . 1999 ; 159 ( 1 ): 179 - 187 .

18 . Kleinbaum D , Kupper L , Muller K . Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariable Methods . 2nd ed. Boston, MA : PWS-KENT Publishing ; 1988 .

19 . Bowker AH . A test for symmetry in contingency tables . J Am Stat Assoc . 1948 ; 43 ( 244 ): 572 - 574 .

20 . Diaz-Guzman E , McCarthy K , Siu A , Stoller JK . Frequency and causes of combined obstruction and restriction identifi ed in pulmonary function tests in adults . Respir Care . 2010 ; 55 ( 3 ): 310 - 316 .

21 . Dykstra BJ , Scanlon PD , Kester MM , Beck KC , Enright PL . Lung volumes in 4,774 patients with obstructive lung disease . Chest . 1999 ; 115 ( 1 ): 68 - 74 .

22 . Hong Y , Ra SW , Shim TS , et al . Poor interpretation of pul-monary function tests in patients with concomitant decreases in FEV1 and FVC . Respirology . 2008 ; 13 ( 4 ): 569 - 574 .

23 . Fisher LR , Cawley MI , Holgate ST . Relation between chest expansion, pulmonary function, and exercise tolerance in patients with ankylosing spondylitis . Ann Rheum Dis . 1990 ; 49 ( 11 ): 921 - 925 .

24 . De Troyer A , Borenstein S , Cordier R . Analysis of lung vol-ume restriction in patients with respiratory muscle weakness . Thorax . 1980 ; 35 ( 8 ): 603 - 610 .

Downloaded From: http://journal.publications.chestnet.org/ on 06/26/2013