Pulmonology · 3 h ago
Review finds variable longitudinal reliability of unsupervised home spirometry
A systematic review of 45 studies found generally low-to-moderate variability in repeated unsupervised remote spirometry measurements, with reliability differing by disease context. The findings support home spirometry as a complementary monitoring tool rather than a replacement for supervised clinical testing.
- Review included 45 longitudinal studies of unsupervised remote spirometry.
- Median variability was 6.2% for FEV1 and 5.9% for FVC.
- Measurement variability was higher in neuromuscular populations.
- Evidence supports complementary monitoring, not replacement of supervised spirometry.
Unsupervised remote spirometry enables frequent home-based lung function monitoring, but its longitudinal reliability remains uncertain. A systematic review in ERJ Open Research searched four databases through May 11, 2026, identifying 45 longitudinal studies reporting repeated unsupervised measurements, with or without supervised clinical comparators. Primary outcomes were test–retest reliability and repeatability, assessed using coefficients of variation (COV) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC); estimates were summarised descriptively.
Among 25 studies reporting COV, median values were 6.2% for FEV1 (range 1.7–18.6%) and 5.9% for FVC (range 1.2–22.7%). Variability was generally low to moderate in cohorts with interstitial lung disease, cystic fibrosis, asthma and COPD, but higher in neuromuscular populations. Individual ICC estimates ranged from 0.65 to 1.00 for FEV1 and 0.85 to 1.00 for FVC/vital capacity. Exploratory analyses found no association between COV and study duration or mean age, although variability was higher in more recent and larger studies.
These findings suggest that remote spirometry may support longitudinal monitoring in selected populations. However, few studies reported ICCs or longitudinal reliability of supervised clinical spirometry, and substantial heterogeneity limited direct comparisons. The review supports complementary use rather than substitution for supervised testing. This report is based on the abstract; full text was unavailable.
Is this summary clinically accurate?
Help fellow clinicians: your rating sends inaccurate summaries straight to our editors.
Sign in to rate this summary →Source
ERJ Open Research: Longitudinal reliability of unsupervised remote spirometry: a systematic review ↗This is an automated AI-condensed summary that has not yet been reviewed by an editor. Always consult the full item at the original source.