Scholarlink

<p>This study presents a comprehensive benchmarking of six commercially available peak expiratory flow meters (PFMs), using a precise experimental spirometric test bench. Eight peak expiratory flows (PEF) ranging from 59.40 to 688.80&#xa0;L/min at three frequencies, were systematically applied to each device. Through a series of controlled tests, the devices’ precision, accuracy, linearity, inter-device variability, and dynamic response were meticulously evaluated across their full measurement range. Results reveal distinct performance characteristics among models, with some demonstrating high precision and accuracy in intermediate flow ranges, whereas others exhibited significant deviations at lower or higher flows. Inter-device variability was minimal except for specific models at lower flow rates. Dynamic response at varying frequencies indicated negligible impact on device readings. This benchmarking provides valuable insights for clinicians and researchers selecting appropriate PFMs for respiratory assessments.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Experimental verification and comparative analysis of peak expiratory flow measuring devices

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月17日

查看全文
  • Concepción Paz,
  • Eduardo Suárez,
  • Alberto Fernández-Villar,
  • Elena Puga

摘要

This study presents a comprehensive benchmarking of six commercially available peak expiratory flow meters (PFMs), using a precise experimental spirometric test bench. Eight peak expiratory flows (PEF) ranging from 59.40 to 688.80 L/min at three frequencies, were systematically applied to each device. Through a series of controlled tests, the devices’ precision, accuracy, linearity, inter-device variability, and dynamic response were meticulously evaluated across their full measurement range. Results reveal distinct performance characteristics among models, with some demonstrating high precision and accuracy in intermediate flow ranges, whereas others exhibited significant deviations at lower or higher flows. Inter-device variability was minimal except for specific models at lower flow rates. Dynamic response at varying frequencies indicated negligible impact on device readings. This benchmarking provides valuable insights for clinicians and researchers selecting appropriate PFMs for respiratory assessments.