Patients exposed to a surgical safety checklist experience better postoperative outcomes, but this could simply reflect wider quality of care in hospitals where checklist use is routine.

Background: Chronic respiratory diseases constitute a considerable part in the practice of pulmonologists and primary care physicians; spirometry is integral for the diagnosis and monitoring of these diseases, yet remains underutilized. The Air Next spirometer (NuvoAir, Sweden) is a novel ultra-portable device that performs spirometric measurements connected to a smartphone or tablet via Bluetooth®. Methods: The objective of this study was to assess the accuracy and validity of these measurements by comparing them with the ones obtained with a conventional desktop spirometer. Two hundred subjects were enrolled in the study with various spirometric patterns (50 patients with asthma, 50 with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and 50 with interstitial lung disease) as well as 50 healthy individuals. Results: For the key spirometric parameters in the interpretation of spirometry, i.e. FEV 1 , FVC, FEV 1 /FVC and FEF 25-75% , Pearson correlation and Interclass Correlation Coefficient were greater than 0.94, exhibiting perfect concordance between the two spirometers. Similar results were observed in an exploratory analysis of the subgroups of patients. Using Bland-Altman plots we have shown good reproducibility in the measurements between the two devices, with small mean differences for the evaluated spirometric parameters and the majority of measurements being well within the limits of agreement. Conclusions: Our results support the use of Air Next as a reliable spirometer for the screening and diagnosis of various spirometric patterns in clinical practice.

The quality of guidelines is often modest and highly variable. We searched the Medline database for occupational asthma (OA) guidelines meeting our inclusion criteria and undertook a systematic appraisal of them. Six appraisers independently evaluated these guidelines using the AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II) instrument. Standardised scores for each domain and for overall quality were calculated, as well as intraclass correlation coefficients to assess agreement among appraisers. Seven relevant guidelines were identified. Three were based on a systematic review of the evidence. Most guidelines scored high on the domains 'Scope and purpose' and 'Clarity and presentation', but scores on the other domains were variable. The lowest scores were for 'Applicability', suggesting that guideline developers did not pay sufficient attention to practical problems affecting the implementation of their recommendations. We also observed a trend toward improved scores in guidelines published after 2000. Inter-rater agreement was good for most domains, and particularly for 'Rigour of development'. This domain was most strongly correlated with the overall assessment scores, together with 'Scope and purpose' and 'Editorial independence'. The quality of OA guidelines is variable, both within and across guidelines. There is significant room for improvement, and greater efforts to produce high-quality guidelines are warranted, in order to assist clinical decision-making.

No abstract