Single breath counting technique to assess pulmonary function: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Pulmonary function is usually assessed by measuring Vital Capacity (VC) using equipment such as a spirometer or ventilometer, but these are not always available to the population, as they are relatively expensive tests, difficult to transport and require trained professionals. However, the Single Breath Counting Technique (SBCT) appears as a possible alternative to respiratory function tests, to help in the pathophysiological understanding of lung diseases. The objective is to verify the applicability of the SBCT as a parameter for evaluating VC. This is a systematic review registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023383706) and used for PubMed®, SciELO, LILACS, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases of articles published until January 2023. Methodological quality regarding the risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2 and NIH tools. Eleven of a total of 574 studies were included, of these, nine showed a correlation between VC and SBCT (weak in healthy, moderate in neuromuscular and strong in hospitalized patients). One study of hospitalized patients accurately identified a count value of 21 for a VC of 20ml/kg (Sensitivity=94% and Specificity=77%), and another estimated a count lower than 41 for a VC below 80% of predicted in patients with neuromuscular dystrophy (Sensitivity=89% and Specificity=62%), and another showed good intra and inter-examiner reproducibility in young, adult and elderly populations. A meta-analysis of three studies showed a moderate correlation in subjects with neuromuscular diseases (r=0.62, 95% CI=0.52-0.71, p<0.01). A high risk of bias was identified regarding the justification of the sample size and blinding of the evaluators. SBCT has been presented as an alternative to assess VC in the absence of specific equipment. There is a clear relationship between SBCT and VC, especially in neuromuscular and hospitalized individuals. New validation studies conducted with greater control of potential bias risks are necessary.