The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The accuracy of portable peak flow meters.
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The variability of peak expiratory flow (PEF) is now commonly used in the diagnosis and management of asthma. It is essential for PEF meters to have a linear response in order to obtain an unbiased measurement of PEF variability. As the accuracy and linearity of portable PEF meters have not been rigorously tested in recent years this aspect of their performance has been investigated. METHODS: The response of several portable PEF meters was tested with absolute standards of flow generated by a computer driven, servo controlled pump and their response was compared with that of a pneumotachograph. RESULTS: For each device tested the readings were highly repeatable to within the limits of accuracy with which the pointer position can be assessed by eye. The between instrument variation in reading for six identical devices expressed as a 95% confidence limit was, on average across the range of flows, +/- 8.5 l/min for the Mini-Wright, +/- 7.9 l/min for the Vitalograph, and +/- 6.4 l/min for the Ferraris. PEF meters based on the Wright meter all had similar error profiles with overreading of up to 80 l/min in the mid flow range from 300 to 500 l/min. This overreading was greatest for the Mini-Wright and Ferraris devices, and less so for the original Wright and Vitalograph meters. A Micro-Medical Turbine meter was accurate up to 400 l/min and then began to underread by up to 60 l/min at 720 l/min. For the low range devices the Vitalograph device was accurate to within 10 l/min up to 200 l/min, with the Mini-Wright overreading by up to 30 l/min above 150 l/min. CONCLUSION: Although the Mini-Wright, Ferraris, and Vitalograph meters gave remarkably repeatable results their error profiles for the full range meters will lead to important errors in recording PEF variability. This may lead to incorrect diagnosis and bias in implementing strategies of asthma treatment based on PEF measurement.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The British Guidelines on Asthma Management * 1995 Review and Position Statement
The British Thoracic Society The National Asthma Campaign The Royal College of Physicians of London in association with the General Practitioner in Asthma Group the British Association of Accident and Emergency Medicine the British Paediatric Respiratory (1997) · Thorax · doi:10.1136/thx.52.suppl_1.s1 · Cited by 448
Guidelines on the management of asthma.
Jones, K. P. (1993) · Thorax · doi:10.1136/thx.48.10.1050 · Cited by 422
Gannon, P. F., Newton, D. T., Belcher, J., Pantin, C. F., & Burge, P. S. (1996) · Thorax · doi:10.1136/thx.51.5.484 · Cited by 138
MILES, J. E., GARDEN, G. M. E., TUNNICLIFFE, W. S., CAYTON, R. M., & AYRES, J. G. (1997) · Clinical <html_ent glyph="@amp;" ascii="&"/> Experimental Allergy · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.1997.tb01152.x · Cited by 68
Metadata
- Authors
- Miller, M. R., Dickinson, S. A., & Hitchings, D. J.
- Venue
- Thorax
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1992-11-01
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 904-909
- ISSN
- 0040-6376 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2129907885
- Cited by
- 182
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The accuracy of portable peak flow meters. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/thx.47.11.904
- The paper
- Miller, M. R., Dickinson, S. A., & Hitchings, D. J. (1992). The accuracy of portable peak flow meters. Thorax. https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.47.11.904
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.